Dataset Information

A cross-sectional examination of conflict-of-interest disclosures of physician-authors publishing in high-impact US medical journals.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the accuracy of self-reported financial conflict-of-interest (COI) disclosures in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) within the requisite disclosure period prior to article submission.

Design

Cross-sectional investigation.

Data sources

Original clinical-trial research articles published in NEJM (n=206) or JAMA (n=188) from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017; self-reported COI disclosure forms submitted to NEJM or JAMA with the authors' published articles; Open Payments website (from database inception; latest search: August 2019).

Main outcome measures

Financial data reported to Open Payments from 2014 to 2016 (a time period that included all subjects' requisite disclosure windows) were compared with self-reported disclosure forms submitted to the journals. Payments selected for analysis were defined by Open Payments as 'general payments.' Payment types were categorised as 'disclosed,' 'undisclosed,' 'indeterminate' or 'unrelated'.

Results

Thirty-one articles from NEJM and 31 articles from JAMA met inclusion criteria. The physician-authors (n=118) received a combined total of US$7.48 million. Of the 106 authors (89.8%) who received payments, 86 (81.1%) received undisclosed payments. The top 23 most highly compensated received US$6.32 million, of which US$3.00 million (47.6%) was undisclosed.

Conclusions

High payment amounts, as well as high proportions of undisclosed financial compensation, regardless of amount received, comprised potential COIs for two influential US medical journals. Further research is needed to explain why such high proportions of general payments were undisclosed and whether journals that rely on self-reported COI disclosure need to reconsider their policies.

SUBMITTER: Baraldi JH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9021780 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A cross-sectional examination of conflict-of-interest disclosures of physician-authors publishing in high-impact US medical journals.

Baraldi James H JH Picozzo Steven A SA Arnold Jacob C JC Volarich Kathryn K Gionfriddo Michael R MR Piper Brian J BJ

BMJ open 20220411 4

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the accuracy of self-reported financial conflict-of-interest (COI) disclosures in the <i>New England Journal of Medicine</i> (<i>NEJM</i>) and the <i>Journal of the American Medical Association</i> (<i>JAMA</i>) within the requisite disclosure period prior to article submission.<h4>Design</h4>Cross-sectional investigation.<h4>Data sources</h4>Original clinical-trial research articles published in <i>NEJM</i> (n=206) or <i>JAMA</i> (n=188) from 1 January 2017 to 31 Dec ...[more]

PMID: 35410932

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:BackgroundTo inform training program development and curricular initiatives, quantitative descriptions of the disciplinary training of research teams publishing in top-tier clinical and epidemiological journals are needed. Our objective was to assess whether interdisciplinary academic training and teamwork of authors publishing original research in 15 top-tier journals varied by year of publication (2000/2010/2020), type of journal (epidemiological/general clinical/specialty clinical), corresponding author gender, and time since the corresponding author completed formal training relative to the article publication date (<5/≥5 years).Methods and findingsWe invited corresponding authors of original research articles to participate in an online survey (n = 103; response rate = 8.3% of 1240 invited authors). In bivariate analyses, year of publication, type of journal, gender, and recency of training were not significantly associated with interdisciplinary team composition, whether a co-author with epidemiological or biostatistical training was involved in any research stage (design/analysis/interpretation/reporting), or with participants' confidence in their own or their co-authors epidemiological or biostatistical expertise (p > 0.05 for each comparison). Exceptions were participants with more recent epidemiological training all had co-author(s) with epidemiological training contribute to study design and interpretation, and participants who published in 2020 were more likely to report being extremely confident in their epidemiological abilities.ConclusionsThis study was the first to quantify interdisciplinary training among research teams publishing in epidemiological and clinical journals. Our quantitative results show research published in top-tier journals generally represents interdisciplinary teamwork and that interdisciplinary training may provide publication type options. Our qualitative results show researchers view interdisciplinary training favorably.

Project description:ImportancePhysicians contribute content to online databases, and other health care professionals use these websites to support their decision-making. Financial conflicts of interest (COI) have the potential to adversely impact evidence-based patient care.ObjectivesTo quantify the potential COI among content contributors to 2 popular point-of-care medical resources, UpToDate and DynaMed, overall and by gender, and to compare self-reported and industry-mandated disclosures.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study compiled an initial list of contributors for each website using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Leading Causes of Death. The top 50 causes were used to identify relevant articles from each database from November 30 to December 7, 2020. The authors and editors of those articles were investigated. Data were analyzed from January 2021 to March 2022.Main outcomes and measuresSelf-reported contributor disclosure status was compared with financial remuneration as reported in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments (OP) database from 2013 to 2018.ResultsA total of 179 point-of-care database authors and editors were assessed. Combined, they received $77.7 million, with a mean of $583 218 (95% CI, $0-$4 679 651) and median (range) of $29 073 ($10-$17 517 315) each. Most of the compensation ($68.1 million [87.6%]) went to UpToDate contributors. Of 128 UpToDate contributors, 76 (59.4%) reported nothing to disclose, and among these, 44 contributors (57.9%) had a record of receiving a financial payment on OP. Women UpToDate contributors received 2.5% of the total compensation paid from industry. The top 10 UpToDate contributors who received the most financial remuneration earned $56.1 million combined, were all men, and only 1 had a nothing-to-disclose status. Of 51 DynaMed contributors, 42 (82.4%) reported nothing to disclose, and among these, 35 contributors (83.3%) had an OP entry (mean, $79 820; 95% CI, $0-$400 774; median [range], $1403 [$26-$630 424]). Among the top 10 DynaMed contributors, 8 (80.0%) were men. Six of the top 10 DynaMed contributors reported nothing to disclose yet had an OP entry.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that contributors to point-of-care databases were the recipients of nearly $78 million from pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers, and these payments were often not disclosed in association with contributed content. Although these findings do not necessarily suggest ethical lapses among the physicians studied, point-of-care resource websites, like UpToDate and DynaMed, should consider implementing more stringent COI policies and employ an unbiased team to verify self-reported disclosure statuses among content contributors against OP reports.

Project description:ObjectiveWe set out to document how NHS trusts in the UK record and share disclosures of conflict of interest by their employees.DesignCross-sectional study of responses to a Freedom of Information Act request for Gifts and Hospitality Registers.SettingNHS Trusts (secondary/tertiary care organisations) in England.Participants236 Trusts were contacted, of which 217 responded.Main outcome measuresWe assessed all disclosures for completeness and openness, scoring them for achieving each of five measures of transparency.Results185 Trusts (78%) provided a register. 71 Trusts did not respond within the 28 day time limit required by the FoIA. Most COI registers were incomplete by design, and did not contain the information necessary to assess conflicts of interest. 126/185 (68%) did not record the names of recipients. 47/185 (25%) did not record the cash value of the gift or hospitality. Only 31/185 registers (16%) contained the names of recipients, the names of donors, and the cash amounts received. 18/185 (10%) contained none of: recipient name, donor name, and cash amount. Only 15 Trusts had their disclosure register publicly available online (6%). We generated a transparency index assessing whether each Trust met the following criteria: responded on time; provided a register; had a register with fields identifying donor, recipient, and cash amount; provided a register in a format that allowed further analysis; and had their register publicly available online. Mean attainment was 1.9/5; no NHS trust met all five criteria.ConclusionOverall, recording of employees' conflicts of interest by NHS trusts is poor. None of the NHS Trusts in England met all transparency criteria. 19 did not respond to our FoIA requests, 51 did not provide a Gifts and Hospitality Register and only 31 of the registers provided contained enough information to assess employees' conflicts of interest. Despite obligations on healthcare professionals to disclose conflicts of interest, and on organisations to record these, the current system for logging and tracking such disclosures is not functioning adequately. We propose a simple national template for reporting conflicts of interest, modelled on the US 'Sunshine Act'.

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.

Dataset Information

A cross-sectional examination of conflict-of-interest disclosures of physician-authors publishing in high-impact US medical journals.

Objective

Design

Data sources

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A cross-sectional examination of conflict-of-interest disclosures of physician-authors publishing in high-impact US medical journals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets