Importance: Surgical and medical device manufacturers have a cooperative relationship with clinicians. When evaluating published works, one should assess the integrity and academic credentials of the authors, who serve as putative experts. A relationship with a relevant manufacturer may increase the potential risk for bias in relevant studies. Objective: To characterize the association of industrial payments by device manufacturers, self-declared conflict of interest (COI), and relevance of publications among physicians receiving the highest compensation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based bibliometric analysis identified 10 surgical and medical device manufacturing companies and the 10 physicians receiving the highest compensation from each company using the 2015 Open Payments Database (OPD) general payments data. For each of the 100 physicians, the total amount of general payments, number of payments, institution type, and academic rank were recorded. Royalty or license payments were excluded. A search of PubMed identified articles published by each physician from January 1 through December 31, 2016, and their associated COI declaration. Scopus was used to identify bibliometric data reported as the h index (number of papers by a researcher with at least h citations each). Main Outcomes and Measures: Discrepancy between self-declared COI and industry payments. Results: The 100 physicians included in the sample population (88% men) were paid a total of $12 446 969, with a median payment of $95 993. Fifty physicians (50.0%) were faculty at academic institutions. The mean (SD) h index was 18 (18; range, 0-75) for the authors. In 2016, 412 articles were published by these physicians, with a mean (SD) of 4 (6) publications (range, 0-25) and median of 1 (36 physicians had no publications). Of these articles, 225 (54.6%) were relevant to the general payments received by the authors. Only in 84 of the 225 relevant publications (37.3%) was the potential COI declared by the authors. Conclusions and Relevance: A high level of inconsistency was found between self-declared COI and the OPD among the physicians receiving the highest industry payments. Therefore, a policy of full disclosure for all publications, regardless of relevance, is proposed. No statistically significant association was demonstrated between academic rank or productivity and industrial payments.
Importance: Surgical and medical device manufacturers have a cooperative relationship with clinicians. When evaluating published works, one should assess the integrity and academic credentials of the authors, who serve as putative experts. A relationship with a relevant manufacturer may increase the potential risk for bias in relevant studies. Objective: To characterize the association of industrial payments by device manufacturers, self-declared conflict of interest (COI), and relevance of publications among physicians receiving the highest compensation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based bibliometric analysis identified 10 surgical and medical device manufacturing companies and the 10 physicians receiving the highest compensation from each company using the 2015 Open Payments Database (OPD) general payments data. For each of the 100 physicians, the total amount of general payments, number of payments, institution type, and academic rank were recorded. Royalty or license payments were excluded. A search of PubMed identified articles published by each physician from January 1 through December 31, 2016, and their associated COI declaration. Scopus was used to identify bibliometric data reported as the h index (number of papers by a researcher with at least h citations each). Main Outcomes and Measures: Discrepancy between self-declared COI and industry payments. Results: The 100 physicians included in the sample population (88% men) were paid a total of $12 446 969, with a median payment of $95 993. Fifty physicians (50.0%) were faculty at academic institutions. The mean (SD) h index was 18 (18; range, 0-75) for the authors. In 2016, 412 articles were published by these physicians, with a mean (SD) of 4 (6) publications (range, 0-25) and median of 1 (36 physicians had no publications). Of these articles, 225 (54.6%) were relevant to the general payments received by the authors. Only in 84 of the 225 relevant publications (37.3%) was the potential COI declared by the authors. Conclusions and Relevance: A high level of inconsistency was found between self-declared COI and the OPD among the physicians receiving the highest industry payments. Therefore, a policy of full disclosure for all publications, regardless of relevance, is proposed. No statistically significant association was demonstrated between academic rank or productivity and industrial payments.
Authors: William Fleischman; Joseph S Ross; Edward R Melnick; David H Newman; Arjun K Venkatesh Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Peter F Svider; Michael Bobian; Ho-Sheng Lin; Michael Setzen; Soly Baredes; Jean Anderson Eloy; Adam J Folbe Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2016-04-26 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Oscar A Olavarria; Julie L Holihan; Deepa Cherla; Cristina A Perez; Lillian S Kao; Tien C Ko; Mike K Liang Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2017-02-04 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Eric G Campbell; Russell L Gruen; James Mountford; Lawrence G Miller; Paul D Cleary; David Blumenthal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-04-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Deepa V Cherla; Oscar A Olavarria; Julie L Holihan; Cristina Perez Viso; Craig Hannon; Lillian S Kao; Tien C Ko; Mike K Liang Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: James H Baraldi; Steven A Picozzo; Jacob C Arnold; Kathryn Volarich; Michael R Gionfriddo; Brian J Piper Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-04-11 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Lisa Goudman; Philippe Rigoard; Maxime Billot; Rui V Duarte; Sam Eldabe; Maarten Moens Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 2.832