Dataset Information

Reporting of conflicts of interest in oral presentations at medical conferences: a delegate-based prospective observational study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the prevalence, location, presentation and consistency of conflict of interest statements in oral presentations at medical conferences DESIGN: Prospective, delegate-based observational study SAMPLE: 201 oral presentations at 5 medical conferences in 2016 MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Presence of a conflict of interest statement, its location within the presentation and its duration of display. Concordance between conflict of interest disclosures in oral presentations and written abstracts or meeting speaker information RESULTS: Conflict of interest statements were present in 143/201 (71%) presentations (range for conferences 26%-100%). 118 of the 141 evaluable statements (84%) were reported on a specific slide. Slides containing conflict of interest statements were displayed for a median (IQR) 2?s (1-5), range for conferences 1.25-7.5?s. Duration of display was shorter when the slide contained only the conflict of interest statement, 2?s (1-3.5), than when it contained other information, 8?s (3-17), but was not affected by type of presentation or whether a conflict of interest was disclosed. When a conflict of interest was disclosed, 27/84 (32%) presenters discussed an aspect of it. Discordance between the presence of a conflict of interest disclosure in the oral presentation and written formats occurred for 22% of presentations.

Conclusion

In oral presentations at the medical conferences we assessed, conflict of interest statements were often missing, displayed too briefly to be read and understood, or not discussed/explained by the presenter. They were sometimes discordant with statements in the corresponding written formats. Conference delegates' ability to assess the objectivity and quality of the information in oral presentations may therefore have been diminished.

SUBMITTER: Grey A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5623528 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reporting of conflicts of interest in oral presentations at medical conferences: a delegate-based prospective observational study.

Grey Andrew A Avenell Alison A Dalbeth Nicola N Stewart Fiona F Bolland Mark J MJ

BMJ open 20170921 9

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the prevalence, location, presentation and consistency of conflict of interest statements in oral presentations at medical conferences DESIGN: Prospective, delegate-based observational study SAMPLE: 201 oral presentations at 5 medical conferences in 2016 MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Presence of a conflict of interest statement, its location within the presentation and its duration of display. Concordance between conflict of interest disclosures in oral presentations and wri ...[more]

PMID: 28939580

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceConflicts of interest (COI) disclosure policies are critical to enhancing the integrity of research. However, it is unclear how Chinese medical journals interpret and enforce such policies.ObjectivesThe goal of this investigation is to determine the current status of COI disclosure policy enforcement in Chinese medical journals and to promote comprehensive COI policies.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study conducted from September 1st to October 29th 2017, journal instructions, websites and print issues of journals indexed by the Core Journals of China (version 2014), in the medical and health sector, were reviewed to identify whether COI disclosure policies existed and how complete these policies were.ResultsOf 248 eligible journals, 78 (31%) mentioned COI policies; 9 (4%) applied standardized disclosure forms; 18 (7%) required disclosure statements in articles; 4 (2%) mentioned policy bases; none validated disclosed COIs; 2 (1%) mentioned how they dealt with breaches; 18 (7%) involved the management of disclosed COIs; and 62 (25%) and 55 (22%) noted financial and nonfinancial COIs, respectively. Seventy-eight journals (31%) mentioned COIs in research and authors' obligation towards disclosure; 2 (1%) and 6 (2%) mentioned family members' and institutional COIs, respectively. Twenty-two and 11 journals mentioned at least one form of financial and nonfinancial COI type in research, respectively. Seven journals (3%) required disclosure of the source of financial support in research, but no journals mentioned the amount of support. Seven (3%) and 12 (5%) journals mentioned COIs in the editorial process and peer-review, respectively. Clinical journals (45%) paid more attention to COI policies than non-clinical journals.ConclusionsApproximately one-third of Chinese medical journals had COI policies, and of the journals that mentioned financial COIs most required nonfinancial COIs. However, the extent to which journals implemented COI policies was insufficient. There is a generic lack of standardized disclosure forms and management of COIs in most journals. The subject and details of COIs involved in the editorial and peer-review process received less attention than those in research.

Project description:BACKGROUND:A previous study found that 2 of 29 (6.9%) meta-analyses published in high-impact journals in 2009 reported included drug trials' funding sources, and none reported trial authors' financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) or industry employment. It is not known if reporting has improved since 2009. Our objectives were to (1) investigate the extent to which pharmaceutical industry funding and author-industry FCOIs and employment from included drug trials are reported in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals and (2) compare current reporting with results from 2009. METHODS:We searched PubMed (January 2017-October 2018) for systematic reviews with meta-analyses including ? 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patented drugs. We included 3 meta-analyses published January 2017-October 2018 from each of 4 high-impact general medicine journals, high-impact journals from 5 specialty areas, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, as in the previous study. RESULTS:Among 29 meta-analyses reviewed, 13 of 29 (44.8%) reported the funding source of included trials compared to 2 of 29 (6.9%) in 2009, a difference of 37.9% (95% confidence interval, 15.7 to 56.3%); this included 7 of 11 (63.6%) from general medicine journals, 3 of 15 (20.0%) from specialty medicine journals, and 3 of 3 (100%) Cochrane reviews. Only 2 of 29 meta-analyses (6.9%) reported trial author FCOIs, and none reported trial author-industry employment. PROTOCOL PUBLICATION:A protocol was uploaded to the Open Science Framework prior to initiating the study. https://osf.io/8xt5p/ LIMITATIONS: We examined only a relatively small number of meta-analyses from selected high-impact journals and compared results to a similarly small sample from an earlier time period. CONCLUSIONS:Reporting of drug trial sponsorship and author FCOIs in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals has increased since 2009 but is still suboptimal. Standards on reporting of trial funding described in the forthcoming revised PRISMA statement should be adapted and enforced by journals to improve reporting.

Project description:Introduction: As robotic-guidance and minimally invasive approaches become more prevalent in spine surgery, there is a growing interest in high-level scientific evidence of their clinical value. MIS ReFRESH is the first prospective, comparative, multi-center study designed to assess differences in surgical complication and revision rates, and exposure to intra-operative radiation, in adult degenerative conditions, operated in a minimally invasive (MIS) approach in 1-to-3 level fusions. Materials and Methods: Multicenter data (9 sites) were prospectively collected from 379 adult patients indicated for fusion surgery, including demographics, complications, need for revision surgery and use of intra-operative fluoroscopy (in seconds). A single site randomized patients between arms, while other sites enrolled exclusively to one arm. We compared of incidence of revision surgeries and clinical complications (surgical and medical) through a logistic regression model (Cox) as well as intra-operative fluoroscopy use. Results: Altogether, 9 sites enrolled 379 cases: 287 in the robot-guided arm (RG), and 92 in the fluoro-guided arm (FG). One site randomized patients, 15 to RG and 11 to FG. Mean age of RG patients was 59.1 years vs. 62.4 for FG (p = 0.032) and BMI was 31.4 vs. 28.0, respectively (p < 0.001). Sex distribution was similar at 62.0% females in RG and 57.4% in FG (p = 0.468). Charlson Comorbidity Index was 0.5 ± 0.8 in RG vs. 0.3 ± 0.6 in FG (p = 0.022). There were 4.8 ± 1.2 pedicle screws per case in RG vs. 4.3 ± 0.9 screws in FG (p < 0.001). In RG 33% of cases were 2-levels and 5% 3-levels, while in FG 16% were 2-level fusions, and 1% were 3-level fusions. Use of fluoroscopy for the instrumentation phase was 3.8 ± 3.9 seconds/screw in RG vs. 16.9 ± 9.2 in FG (p < 0.001). Average follow up was 174 days in RG and 159 in FG. Within the first year of follow up there were 28 (9.7%) complications in RG vs. 35 (38.0%) in FG, and 4 (1.4%) revisions in RG vs. 4 (4.3%) in FG. When evaluated in a Cox logistic regression model that includes age, gender, BMI, Charlson Comorbidity Index and number of executed screws, the Relative Risk (RR) for a complication was 5.3 times higher in FG compared to RG (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 3.0-9.5, p < 0.001). RR for a revision surgery were 7.1 times higher for a fluoro-guided surgery compared to the robot-guided cases (95% CI 1.6-32.6, p = 0.012). Conclusion: We report our findings from a prospective, multi-center, comparative study of MIS lumbar fusions performed with robotic-guidance in 287 patients vs. fluoro-guidance in 92 controls. RR for a complication or a revision surgery was significantly higher in FG during the first year of follow-up compared to RG (5.3-fold and 7.1-fold, respectively). RG reduced fluoroscopy exposure time per case by 78%, or almost a minute, helping offset the patients’ exposure during the pre-operative CT scan required for planning the robotic procedure.

Dataset Information

Reporting of conflicts of interest in oral presentations at medical conferences: a delegate-based prospective observational study.

Objective

Conclusion

Publications

Reporting of conflicts of interest in oral presentations at medical conferences: a delegate-based prospective observational study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets