Assessment of Comprehensibility of Industry Conflicts of Interest and Disclosures by Multiple Sclerosis Researchers at Medical Conferences.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Martin SJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8019098 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo 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.ConclusionIn 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.
| S-EPMC5623528 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6375255 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background There is a high prevalence of financial conflicts of interest (COI) between physicians and industry. Objectives To conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis examining the completeness of self-reported financial COI disclosures by physicians, and identify factors associated with non-disclosure. Data sources MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO were searched for eligible studies up to April 2020 and supplemented with material identified in the references and citing articles. Data extraction and synthesis Data were independently abstracted by two authors. Data synthesis was performed via systematic review of eligible studies and random-effects meta-analysis. Main outcomes and measures The proportion of discrepancies between physician self-reported disclosures and objective payment data was the main outcome. The proportion of discrepant funds and factors associated with non-disclosure were also examined. Results 40 studies were included. The pooled proportion of COI discrepancies at the article level was 81% (range: 54%–98%; 95% CI 72% to 89%), 79% at the payment level (range: 71%–89%; 95% CI 67% to 89%), 93% at the authorship level (range: 71%–100%; 95% CI 79% to 100%) and 66% at the author level (range: 8%–99%; 95% CI 48% to 78%). The proportion of funds discrepant was 33% (range: 2%–77%; 95% CI 12% to 58%). There was high heterogeneity between studies across all five analyses (I2=94%–99%). Most undisclosed COI were related to food and beverage, or travel and lodging. While the most common explanation for failure to disclose was perceived irrelevance, a median of 45% of non-disclosed payments were directly or indirectly related to the work. A smaller monetary amount was the most common factor associated with nondisclosure. Conclusions Physician self-reports of financial COI are highly discrepant with objective data sources reporting payments from industry. Stronger policies are required to reduce reliance on physician self-reporting of financial COI and address non-compliance.
| S-EPMC8039229 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Almost all medical journals now require authors to publicly disclose conflicts of interests (COI). The same standard and scrutiny is rarely employed for the editors of the journals although COI may affect editorial decisions.We conducted a retrospective observational study to determine the prevalence and magnitude of financial relationships among editors of 60 influential US medical journals (10 each for internal medicine and five subspecialties: cardiology, gastroenterology, neurology, dermatology and allergy & immunology). Open Payments database was reviewed to determine the percentage of physician editors receiving payments and the nature and amount of these payments.703 unique physician editors were included in our analysis. 320/703 (46%) received 8659 general payments totaling $8,120,562. The median number of payments per editor was 9 (IQR 3-26) and the median amount per payment was $91 (IQR $21-441). The median total payment received by each editor in one year was $4,364 (IQR $319-23,143). 152 (48%) editors received payments more than $5,000 in a year, a threshold considered significant by the National Institutes of Health. COI policies for editors were available for 34/60 (57%) journals but only 7/34 (21%) publicly reported the disclosures and only 2 (3.%) reported the dollar amount received.A significant number of editors of internal medicine and subspecialty medical journals have financial COI and very few are publicly disclosed. Specialty journal editors have more COI compared to general medicine journal editors. Current policies for disclosing COI for editors are inconsistent and do not comply with the recommended standards.
| S-EPMC5959187 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Backgroundtransparency in reporting of conflict of interest is an increasingly important aspect of publication in medical journals. Publication of large industry-supported trials may generate many citations and journal income through reprint sales and thereby be a source of conflicts of interest for journals. We investigated industry-supported trials' influence on journal impact factors and revenue.Methods and findingswe sampled six major medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine [NEJM]). For each journal, we identified randomised trials published in 1996-1997 and 2005-2006 using PubMed, and categorized the type of financial support. Using Web of Science, we investigated citations of industry-supported trials and the influence on journal impact factors over a ten-year period. We contacted journal editors and retrieved tax information on income from industry sources. The proportion of trials with sole industry support varied between journals, from 7% in BMJ to 32% in NEJM in 2005-2006. Industry-supported trials were more frequently cited than trials with other types of support, and omitting them from the impact factor calculation decreased journal impact factors. The decrease varied considerably between journals, with 1% for BMJ to 15% for NEJM in 2007. For the two journals disclosing data, income from the sales of reprints contributed to 3% and 41% of the total income for BMJ and The Lancet in 2005-2006.Conclusionspublication of industry-supported trials was associated with an increase in journal impact factors. Sales of reprints may provide a substantial income. We suggest that journals disclose financial information in the same way that they require them from their authors, so that readers can assess the potential effect of different types of papers on journals' revenue and impact.
| S-EPMC2964336 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6615603 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Financial conflicts of interest exist between industry and physicians, and these relationships have the power to influence physicians' medical practice. Transparency about conflicts matters for ensuring adequate informed consent, controlling healthcare expenditure, and encouraging physicians' reflection on professionalism. The US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) launched the Open Payments Program (OPP) to publicly disclose and bring transparency to the relationships between industry and physicians in the United States. We set out to explore user awareness of the database and the ease of accessibility to disclosed information, however, as we show, both awareness and actual use are very low. Two practical policies can greatly enhance its intended function and help alleviate ethical tension. The first is to provide data for individual physicians not merely in absolute terms, but in meaningful context, that is, in relation to the zip code, city, and state averages. The second increases access to the OPP dataset by adding hyperlinks from physicians' professional websites directly to their Open Payments disclosure pages. These changes considerably improve transparency and the utility of available data, and can furthermore enhance professionalism and accountability by encouraging physicians to reflect more actively on their own practices.
| S-EPMC5819371 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background: Insufficient risk competence of physicians, conflicts of interests from interactions with pharmaceutical companies, and the often distorted presentation of benefits and risks of therapies compromise the advising of patients by physicians in the framework of shared decision-making. An important cause of this is that teaching on this subject is mostly lacking, or fragmented when it does take place [1], [2], [3], [4]. Even though the German National Competence-Based Catalog of Learning Goals in Medicine defines learning goals on the topics of conflicts of interest and communication of risk, there are no classes that integrate both topics. Our goal was to develop a model curriculum to teach conflicts of interest and communication of risk that would integrate statistical know-how, communicational competency on the presentation of benefits and risks, and the meaning and management of conflicts of interest. Project Description: The development of the curriculum took place according to the six-step cycle of Kern et al [5]. An integrated curriculum was conceptualized, piloted, and adapted with the support of experts for the topics of shared decision-making, conflicts of interest, and communication of risk. The final version of the curriculum was implemented at the medical schools of Mainz and Heidelberg and evaluated by the students. Results: The final curriculum consists of 19 lesson units. The contents are the fundamentals of statistics, theory of risk communication, practical exercises on communication of risk, and the fundamentals of the mechanisms of effect of conflicts of interest, recognition of distortions in data, and introductions to professional management of conflicts of interest. The course was implemented three times at two different medical schools with a total of 32 students, and it was positively rated by most of the 27 participating students who evaluated it on the 1-6 German school grading scale (mean: 1.4; SD: 0.49; range: 1-2). Discussion: The curriculum we developed fills a gap in the current medical education. The innovative concept, which sensibly connects the transmission of theory and practice, was positively received by the students. The next steps are an evaluation of the curriculum by means of a two-center randomized study and the implementation at German and international medical schools. The process should be accompanied by continuous evaluation and further improvement.
| S-EPMC7105765 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe tobacco control community has raised some concerns about whether studies on electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) published in scientific journals hide conflicts of interest (COI) and whether such reports are biased. This study assessed potential COI in the e-cigarette scientific literature.MethodsCross-sectional study was conducted on e-cigarette publications indexed in PubMed up to August 2014. We extracted information about the authors (affiliations, location, etc.), publication characteristics (type, topic, subject, etc.), results and conclusions, presence of a COI statement, and funding by and/or financial ties to pharmaceutical, tobacco, and/or e-cigarette companies. An algorithm to determine the COI disclosure status was created based on the information in the publication. Prevalence ratios (PRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to identify associations with COI disclosure, controlling for several independent variables.ResultsOf the 404 publications included in the analysis, 37.1% (n=150) had no COI disclosure statement, 38.6% declared no COI, 13.4% declared potential COI with pharmaceutical companies, 3.0% with tobacco companies, and 10.6% with e-cigarette companies. The conclusions in publications with COI, which were mainly tied to pharmaceutical companies, were more likely to be favourable to e-cigarette use (PR=2.23; 95% CI: 1.43-3.46). Publications that supported the use of e-cigarettes for both harm reduction (PR=1.81; 95%CI: 1.14-2.89) and smoking cessation (PR=2.02; 95% CI: 1.26-3.23) were more likely to have conclusions that were favourable to e-cigarettes.ConclusionsOne-third of the publications reporting studies on e-cigarettes did not have a COI disclosure statement, and this proportion was even higher in news articles, editorials and other types of publications. Papers with conclusions that were favourable to e-cigarette use were more likely to have COI. Journal editors and reviewers should consider evaluating publications, including funding sources, to determine whether the results and conclusions may be biased.
| S-EPMC6659563 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundState medical licensing boards ask program directors (PDs) to complete verification of training (VOT) forms for licensure. While residency programs use Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core competencies, there is no uniform process or set of metrics that licensing boards use to ascertain if academic competency was achieved.ObjectiveWe determined the performance metrics PDs are required to disclose on state licensing VOT forms.MethodsVOT forms for allopathic medical licensing boards for all 50 states, Washington, DC, and 5 US territories were obtained via online search and reviewed. Questions were categorized by disciplinary action (investigated, disciplined, placed on probation, expelled, terminated); documents placed on file; resident actions (leave of absence, request for transfer, unexcused absences); and non-disciplinary actions (remediation, partial or no credit, non-renewal, non-promotion, extra training required). Three individuals reviewed all forms independently, compared results, and jointly resolved discrepancies. A fourth independent reviewer confirmed all results.ResultsMost states and territories (45 of 56) accept the Federation Credentials Verification Service (FCVS), but 33 states have their own VOT forms. Ten states require FCVS use. Most states ask questions regarding probation (43), disciplinary action (41), and investigation (37). Thirty-four states and territories ask about documents placed on file, 36 ask about resident actions, and 7 ask about non-disciplinary actions. Eight states' VOT forms ask no questions regarding resident performance.ConclusionsAmong the states and territories, there is great variability in VOT forms required for allopathic physicians. These forms focus on disciplinary actions and do not ask questions PDs use to assess resident performance.
| S-EPMC6570450 | biostudies-literature