Dataset Information

Discrepancies in self-reported financial conflicts of interest disclosures by physicians: a systematic review

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Taheri C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8039229 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:Background. Tobacco companies have actively promoted the substitution of cigarettes with purportedly safer tobacco products (e.g., smokeless tobacco, e-cigarettes) as tobacco harm reduction (THR). Given the tobacco, e-cigarette, and pharmaceutical industries' substantial financial interests, we quantified industry influence on support for THR. Objectives. To analyze a comprehensive set of articles published in peer-reviewed journals assessing funding sources and support for or opposition to substitution of tobacco or nicotine products as harm reduction. Search Methods. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and PsycINFO with a comprehensive search string including all articles, comments, and editorials published between January 1, 1992, and July 26, 2016. Selection Criteria. We included English-language publications published in peer-reviewed journals addressing THR in humans and excluded studies on modified cigarettes, on South Asian smokeless tobacco variants, on pregnant women, on animals, not mentioning a tobacco or nicotine product, on US Food and Drug Administration-approved nicotine replacement therapies, and on nicotine vaccines. Data Collection and Analysis. We double-coded all articles for article type; primary product type (e.g., snus, e-cigarettes); themes for and against THR; stance on THR; THR concepts; funding or affiliation with tobacco, e-cigarette, pharmaceutical industry, or multiple industries; and each author's country. We fit exact logistic regression models with stance on THR as the outcome (pro- vs anti-THR) and source of funding or industry affiliation as the predictor taking into account sparse data. Additional models included article type as the outcome (nonempirical or empirical) and industry funding or affiliation as predictor, and stratified analyses for empirical and nonempirical studies with stance on THR as outcome and funding source as predictor. Main Results. Searches retrieved 826 articles, including nonempirical articles (21%), letters or commentaries (34%), editorials (5%), cross-sectional studies (15%), systematic reviews and meta-analyses (3%), and randomized controlled trials (2%). Overall, 23.9% disclosed support by industry; 49% of articles endorsed THR, 42% opposed it, and 9% took neutral or mixed positions. Support from the e-cigarette industry (odds ratio [OR]?=?20.9; 95% confidence interval [CI]?=?5.3, 180.7), tobacco industry (OR?=?59.4; 95% CI?=?10.1, +infinity), or pharmaceutical industry (OR?=?2.18; 95% CI?=?1.3, 3.7) was significantly associated with supportive stance on THR in analyses accounting for sparse data. Authors' Conclusions. Non-industry-funded articles were evenly divided in stance, while industry-funded articles favored THR. Because of their quantity, letters and comments may influence perceptions of THR when empirical studies lack consensus. Public Health Implications. Public health practitioners and researchers need to account for industry funding when interpreting the evidence in THR debates.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Industry sponsors' financial interests might bias the conclusions of scientific research. We examined whether financial industry funding or the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest influenced the results of published systematic reviews (SRs) conducted in the field of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) and weight gain or obesity. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases to identify published SRs from the inception of the databases to August 31, 2013, on the association between SSB consumption and weight gain or obesity. SR conclusions were independently classified by two researchers into two groups: those that found a positive association and those that did not. These two reviewers were blinded with respect to the stated source of funding and the disclosure of conflicts of interest. We identified 17 SRs (with 18 conclusions). In six of the SRs a financial conflict of interest with some food industry was disclosed. Among those reviews without any reported conflict of interest, 83.3% of the conclusions (10/12) were that SSB consumption could be a potential risk factor for weight gain. In contrast, the same percentage of conclusions, 83.3% (5/6), of those SRs disclosing some financial conflict of interest with the food industry were that the scientific evidence was insufficient to support a positive association between SSB consumption and weight gain or obesity. Those reviews with conflicts of interest were five times more likely to present a conclusion of no positive association than those without them (relative risk: 5.0, 95% CI: 1.3-19.3). An important limitation of this study is the impossibility of ruling out the existence of publication bias among those studies not declaring any conflict of interest. However, the best large randomized trials also support a direct association between SSB consumption and weight gain or obesity. CONCLUSIONS: Financial conflicts of interest may bias conclusions from SRs on SSB consumption and weight gain or obesity.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews are increasingly used to inform health policy-making. The conflicts of interest (COI) of the authors of systematic reviews may bias their results and influence their conclusions. This may in turn lead to misguided public policies and systems level decisions. In order to mitigate the adverse impact of COI, scientific journals require authors to disclose their COIs. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency and different types of COI that authors of systematic reviews on health policy and systems research (HSPR) report.MethodsWe conducted a cross sectional survey. We searched the Health Systems Evidence (HSE) database of McMaster Health Forum for systematic reviews published in 2015. We extracted information regarding the characteristics of the systematic reviews and the associated COI disclosures. We conducted descriptive analyses.ResultsEighty percent of systematic reviews included authors' COI disclosures. Of the 160 systematic reviews that included COI disclosures, 15% had at least one author reporting at least one type of COI. The two most frequently reported types of COI were individual financial COI and individual scholarly COI (11% and 4% respectively). Institutional COIs were less commonly reported than individual COIs (3% and 15% respectively) and non-financial COIs were less commonly reported than financial COIs (6% and 14% respectively). Only one systematic review reported the COI disclosure by editors, and none reported disclosure by peer reviewers. All COI disclosures were in the form of a narrative statement in the main document and none in an online document.ConclusionA fifth of systematic reviews in HPSR do not include a COI disclosure statement, highlighting the need for journals to strengthen and/or better implement their COI disclosure policies. While only 15% of identified disclosure statements report any COI, it is not clear whether this indicates a low frequency of COI versus an underreporting of COI, or both.

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review was to summarise the psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) measuring financial toxicity (FT) in cancer survivors.DesignThis systematic review was conducted according to the guidance of the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology.Data sourcesComprehensive searches were performed in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ProQuest and Cochrane Library from database inception to February 2022.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesWe included studies that reported any PROMs for measuring FT in cancer survivors who were ≥18 years old. FT was defined as perceived subjective financial distress resulting from objective financial burden. Studies that were not validation studies and that used a PROM only as an outcome measurement were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted data from the included papers. We used the COSMIN criteria to summarise and evaluate the psychometric properties of each study regarding structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, hypothesis testing for construct validity, cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance, criterion validity and responsiveness.ResultsA total of 23 articles (21 PROMs) were eligible for inclusion in this study. The findings highlighted that the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) had an adequate development process and showed better psychometric properties than other PROMs, especially in internal consistency (Cronbach's α=0.92), reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.80) and hypothesis testing (r=0.42-0.20).ConclusionsFrom a psychometric property perspective, the COST could be recommended as the most suitable worldwide available measure for use in research and clinical practice across different contexts. We suggest that PROMs should be selected only after careful consideration of the local socioeconomic context. Future studies are warranted to develop various FT PROMs based on different social and cultural backgrounds and to clarify the theoretical grounds for assessing FT.