Dataset Information

The relation between publication rate and financial conflict of interest among physician authors of high-impact oncology publications: an observational study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Despite the abundant research on financial conflict of interest regarding provider behaviour and the interpretation and results of research, little is known about the relation between these conflicts in academia and the trajectory of one's academic career. We performed a study to examine whether the presence of financial ties to drug makers among academics is associated with research productivity. METHODS:We hand-searched 3 high-impact general medical journals (New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA and The Lancet) and 3 high-impact oncology journals that publish original science (The Lancet Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology and Journal of the National Cancer Institute) to identify physicians based in the United States who were first or last authors on original papers on hematologic or oncologic topics that appeared in 2015. We ascertained their publication history from Scopus and their personal and research payments from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Open Payments Web site (2013-2015). The strength of association between general (personal) financial payments from 2013 to 2015 and publications from 2013 to 2016 was determined by multivariate regression. RESULTS:Our sample consisted of 435 physicians who had authored a median of 140 publications, earning a median h-index of 36 and a median of 5639 citations. The median total of general payments from 2013 to 2015 was US$3282 (range $0-$3.4 million), and the median amount of research payments was US$3500 (range $0-$23 million). General payments were associated with contemporary publications, with an increase of 1.99 papers (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 to 2.9) per $10 000 in payments. This association persisted in multivariate analysis after adjustment for prior publications, seniority and research payments (0.84 papers [95% CI 0.15 to 1.5] per $10 000 in payments). INTERPRETATION:The findings suggest that there is a positive association between personal payments from drug makers and publications, and that this association persists after adjustment for prior publications, time since medical school graduation and research payments.

SUBMITTER: Kaestner V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5878961 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are important in advancing the quality of medical care. Financial relationships between physicians and pharmaceutical companies may influence clinical practice. In accordance with the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association guidelines for transparency, pharmaceutical company payments to physicians have been disclosed since 2013. The distribution of pharmaceutical company payments among CPG authors in Japan has not been studied.ObjectivesTo determine the characteristics and distribution of payments made by pharmaceutical companies to authors of oncologic CPGs in Japan and to assess the transparency of policies associated with conflict of interest (COI) disclosures in CPGs.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cross-sectional study of 326 authors from 6 prominent oncologic CPGs from Japan included annual payment data for 2016 from 78 pharmaceutical companies during varying times from January 1, 2016, through September 30, 2017.Main outcomes and measuresAmount and proportion of payments made by pharmaceutical companies to the authors; amount and proportion of payments made to the authors of each guideline; and information on policies for disclosing COIs in CPGs (Japanese yen were converted to US dollars based on the February 20, 2019 exchange rate of 110 yen per 1 US dollar).ResultsOf 326 eligible authors, 255 (78.2%) received payments from pharmaceutical companies in 2016. The total number of payments was 3947, and the total amount was $3 444 193 (¥378 861 220), including $2 696 777 for speaking, $181 944 for writing, $554 381 for consulting, and $11 091 for unclear fees. The median payment amount was $3233 (interquartile range [IQR], $506-$10 873), and the mean (SD) payment amount was $10 565 ($20 059); 84 authors (25.8%) received more than $10 000. The largest proportions of CPG authors receiving at least 1 payment were those for gastric carcinoma (92%) and colorectal carcinoma (92%). The median payment was highest for authors of colorectal carcinoma guidelines ($7781; IQR, $2506-$18 633), whereas it was lowest for authors of pancreatic carcinoma guidelines ($2207; IQR, $304-$9240). Only breast carcinoma CPGs published the authors' individual COI disclosure in an identifiable matter; guidelines for lung, colorectal, pancreatic, and hepatocellular carcinomas disclosed the financial relationships between the authors and companies anonymously; and the gastric carcinoma CPGs did not have a COI disclosure section.Conclusions and relevanceMost oncologic CPG authors received payments from pharmaceutical companies, and COI disclosure methods appeared to be insufficient. Given the possibility of bias in guideline content if authors have any financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, CPGs from Japan may require improved transparency.

Project description:BackgroundFinancial conflicts of interest (FCOI) are known to be prevalent in medicine. Authorship of pivotal trials reap non-financial benefits including publication productivity that can be used for assessment of tenure positions and promotion. The purpose of this investigation was to quantify the prevalence and discordance of academic trial author (authors) FCOI in industry-sponsored drug trials that were initially presented as oral abstracts and subsequently resulted in a peer-reviewed publication.MethodsOral abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2017 Annual Meeting that were subsequently published were identified. Studies that were non-industry sponsored, non-adult, or non-therapeutic trials were excluded. Studies that did not have a subsequent peer-reviewed publication or had a publication preceding the ASCO 2017 Annual Meeting were also excluded. FCOI was categorized and impact factor (IF) for the journal at the time of publication was retrieved. FCOI discordance between the oral abstract and publication was calculated based on geographic location and IF.ResultsA total of 22 paired abstract and publications met inclusion criteria for further analysis. A total of 384 authors were identified, of these 280 authors (74.1%) were included in both the oral abstract and subsequent publication. A total of 76% of these 280 authors had FCOI and 66.4% had FCOI discordance. There were statistically significant differences for the sum of FCOI discordance for U.S.-based authors (p = 0.0004) but not for journal IF. When analyzing the sum of absolute differences of FCOI discordance, statistical significance was reached for authors from any of the three geographic regions, as well as, low and high IF journals (all p-values < 0.0001).ConclusionsThis study draws attention to the lack of uniformity and vetting of FCOI reporting in abstracts and journals publishing solid tumor oncology trial results. This is particularly concerning, since FCOI is prevalent globally.

Project description:BackgroundThe requirements of the health policy and services journals for authors to report their financial and non-financial conflicts of interest (COI) are unclear. The present article aims to assess the requirements of health policy and services journals for authors to disclose their financial and non-financial COIs.MethodsThis is a cross-sectional study of journals listed by the Web of Science under the category of 'Health Policy and Services'. We reviewed the 'Instructions for Authors' on the journals' websites and then simulated the submission of a manuscript to obtain any additional relevant information made available during that step. We abstracted data in duplicate and independently using a standardised form.ResultsOut of 72 eligible journals, 67 (93%) had a COI policy. A minority of policies described how the disclosed COIs of authors would impact the editorial process (34%). None of the policies had clear-cut criteria for rejection based on the content of the disclosure. Approximately a fifth of policies (21%) explicitly stated that inaccurate or incomplete disclosures might lead to manuscript rejection or retraction. No policy described whether the journal would verify the accuracy or completeness of authors' disclosed COIs. Most journals' policies (93%) required the disclosure of at least one form of financial COI. While the majority asked for specification of source of payment (71%), a minority asked for the amount (18%). Overall, 81% of policies explicitly required disclosure of non-financial COIs.ConclusionA majority of health policy and services journal policies required the disclosure of authors' financial and non-financial COIs, but few required details on disclosed COIs. Health policy journals should provide specific definitions and instructions for disclosing non-financial COIs. A framework providing clear typology and operational definitions of the different types of COIs will facilitate both their disclosure by authors and reviewers and their assessment and management by the editorial team and the readers.

Project description:PurposeConflicts of interest (COIs) between oncologists and industry might considerably influence how the presentation of the research results is delivered, ultimately affecting clinical decisions and policy-making. Although there are many regulations on reporting COI in high-income countries (HICs), little is known about their reporting in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking (ONCOTRUST-1) is a pilot global survey to explore the knowledge and perceptions of oncologists regarding COI.Materials and methodsWe designed an online 27-question-based survey in the English language to explore the perceptions and knowledge of oncologists regarding COI, with an emphasis on LMICs. Descriptive statistics and the Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies guidelines were used to report the findings.ResultsONCOTRUST-1 surveyed 200 oncologists, 70.9% of them practicing in LMICs. Median age of the respondents was 36 (range, 26-84) years; 47.5% of them were women. Of the respondents, 40.5% reported weekly visits by pharmaceutical representatives to their institutions. Regarding oncologists' perceptions of COI that require disclosure, direct financial benefits, such as honoraria, ranked highest (58.5%), followed by gifts from pharmaceutical representatives (50%) and travel grants for attending conferences (44.5%). By contrast, personal or institutional research funding, sample drugs, consulting or advisory board, expert testimony, and food and beverage funded by pharmaceutical industry were less frequently considered as COI. Moreover, only 24% of surveyed oncologists could correctly categorize all situations representing a COI.ConclusionThese findings underscore the importance of clear guidelines, education, and transparency in reporting COI in oncology. This hypothesis-generating pilot survey provided the rationale for ONCOTRUST-2 study, which will compare perceptions of COI among oncologists in LMICs and HICs.

Project description:ObjectiveThe extent to which biomedical authors have received training in publication ethics, and their attitudes and opinions about the ethical aspects of specific behaviours, have been understudied. We sought to characterise the knowledge and attitudes of biomedical authors about common issues in publication ethics.DesignCross-sectional online survey.Setting and participantsCorresponding authors of research submissions to 20 journals.Main outcome measuresPerceived level of unethical behaviour (rated 0 to 10) presented in five vignettes containing key variables that were experimentally manipulated on entry to the survey and perceived level of knowledge of seven ethical topics related to publishing (prior publication, author omission, self-plagiarism, honorary authorship, conflicts of interest, image manipulation and plagiarism).Results4043/10 582 (38%) researchers responded. Respondents worked in 100 countries and reported varying levels of publishing experience. 67% (n=2700) had received some publication ethics training from a mentor, 41% (n=1677) a partial course, 28% (n=1130) a full course and 55% (n=2206) an online course; only a small proportion rated training received as excellent. There was a full range (0 to 10 points) in ratings of the extent of unethical behaviour within each vignette, illustrating a broad range of opinion about the ethical acceptability of the behaviours evaluated, but these opinions were little altered by the context in which it occurred. Participants reported substantial variability in their perceived knowledge of seven publication ethics topics; one-third perceived their knowledge to be less than 'some knowledge' for the sum of the seven ethical topics and only 9% perceived 'substantial knowledge' of all topics.ConclusionsWe found a large degree of variability in espoused training and perceived knowledge, and variability in views about how ethical or unethical scenarios were. Ethical standards need to be better articulated and taught to improve consistency of training across institutions and countries.

Dataset Information

The relation between publication rate and financial conflict of interest among physician authors of high-impact oncology publications: an observational study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets