BACKGROUND: A significant increase in industry support of professional medical associations coupled with data suggesting that gifts from industry have significant clinical influence have prompted calls from the Institute of Medicine and physician leaders to identify and manage conflicts of interest that stem from financial support of professional medical associations by industry. STUDY DESIGN: A joint task force of members appointed by the Association for Academic Surgery and the Society of University Surgeons was convened in July 2009. Recommendations were developed regarding management of all potential conflicts of interest that can arise within the context of an academic surgical society, with specific focus on relationships with industry. Task force members reached consensus around each recommendation and the guidelines were subsequently adopted by the Executive Councils of both societies. RESULTS: The committee identified 4 primary areas of need for transparent and definitive management of conflict of interest: 1) individual society activities, including general budget support, society endorsements, and journal affiliation; 2) individual personnel conflicts such as society leadership and standards for disclosure of conflict; 3) meeting activities including budgetary support, program committee associations, and abstract review process; and 4) foundation support and research and travel awards. The resulting guidelines aim to protect the societies and their membership from undue bias that may undermine the credibility and mission of these associations. CONCLUSIONS: Policy guidelines to mitigate conflict of interest are necessary to protect the integrity of the work of academic surgical societies and their fiduciary duty to members and patients. Guidelines created and adopted by the Association for Academic Surgery and Society of University Surgeons form an effective model for academic surgical societies and their members.
BACKGROUND: A significant increase in industry support of professional medical associations coupled with data suggesting that gifts from industry have significant clinical influence have prompted calls from the Institute of Medicine and physician leaders to identify and manage conflicts of interest that stem from financial support of professional medical associations by industry. STUDY DESIGN: A joint task force of members appointed by the Association for Academic Surgery and the Society of University Surgeons was convened in July 2009. Recommendations were developed regarding management of all potential conflicts of interest that can arise within the context of an academic surgical society, with specific focus on relationships with industry. Task force members reached consensus around each recommendation and the guidelines were subsequently adopted by the Executive Councils of both societies. RESULTS: The committee identified 4 primary areas of need for transparent and definitive management of conflict of interest: 1) individual society activities, including general budget support, society endorsements, and journal affiliation; 2) individual personnel conflicts such as society leadership and standards for disclosure of conflict; 3) meeting activities including budgetary support, program committee associations, and abstract review process; and 4) foundation support and research and travel awards. The resulting guidelines aim to protect the societies and their membership from undue bias that may undermine the credibility and mission of these associations. CONCLUSIONS: Policy guidelines to mitigate conflict of interest are necessary to protect the integrity of the work of academic surgical societies and their fiduciary duty to members and patients. Guidelines created and adopted by the Association for Academic Surgery and Society of University Surgeons form an effective model for academic surgical societies and their members.
Authors: Jukes P Namm; Mark Siegler; Caroline Brander; Tae Yeon Kim; Christian Lowe; Peter Angelos Journal: World J Surg Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Claire D Johnson; Scott Haldeman; Margareta Nordin; Roger Chou; Pierre Côté; Eric L Hurwitz; Bart N Green; Deborah Kopansky-Giles; Kristi Randhawa; Christine Cedraschi; Arthur Ameis; Emre Acaroğlu; Ellen Aartun; Afua Adjei-Kwayisi; Selim Ayhan; Amer Aziz; Teresa Bas; Fiona Blyth; David Borenstein; O'Dane Brady; Peter Brooks; Connie Camilleri; Juan M Castellote; Michael B Clay; Fereydoun Davatchi; Jean Dudler; Robert Dunn; Stefan Eberspaecher; Juan Emmerich; Jean Pierre Farcy; Norman Fisher-Jeffes; Christine Goertz; Michael Grevitt; Erin A Griffith; Najia Hajjaj-Hassouni; Jan Hartvigsen; Maria Hondras; Edward J Kane; Julie Laplante; Nadège Lemeunier; John Mayer; Silvano Mior; Tiro Mmopelwa; Michael Modic; Jean Moss; Rajani Mullerpatan; Elijah Muteti; Lillian Mwaniki; Madeleine Ngandeu-Singwe; Geoff Outerbridge; Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran; Heather Shearer; Matthew Smuck; Erkin Sönmez; Patricia Tavares; Anne Taylor-Vaisey; Carlos Torres; Paola Torres; Alexander van der Horst; Leslie Verville; Emiliano Vialle; Gomatam Vijay Kumar; Adriaan Vlok; William Watters; Chung Chek Wong; Jessica J Wong; Hainan Yu; Selcen Yüksel Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2018-08-27 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Anna R Gagliardi; Pascale Lehoux; Ariel Ducey; Anthony Easty; Sue Ross; Chaim Bell; Patricia Trbovich; David R Urbach Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-30 Impact factor: 3.240