Deepa V Cherla1,2, Cristina P Viso1, Julie L Holihan1,2, Karla Bernardi3,4,5, Maya L Moses1, Krislynn M Mueck1,2, Oscar A Olavarria1, Juan R Flores-Gonzalez1, Courtney J Balentine6, Tien C Ko1, Sasha D Adams1, Claudia Pedroza1,7, Lillian S Kao1,2, Mike K Liang1,2. 1. Department of Surgery, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA. 2. Center for Surgical Trials and Evidence-Based Practice (C-STEP), McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA. karla.bernardi@uth.tmc.edu. 4. Center for Surgical Trials and Evidence-Based Practice (C-STEP), McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA. karla.bernardi@uth.tmc.edu. 5. Department of Surgery, General Surgery Clinical Research Fellow, Houston, TX, USA. karla.bernardi@uth.tmc.edu. 6. Department of Surgery & Institute for Cancer Outcomes and Survivorship, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. 7. Center for Clinical Research and Evidence-Based Medicine, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Financial interactions between industry and healthcare providers are reportable. Substantial discrepancies have been detected between industry and self-report of these conflicts of interest (COIs). OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine if authors who fail to disclose reportable COI are more likely to publish findings that are favorable to industry than authors with no COI. DESIGN: In this blinded, observational study of medical and surgical primary research articles in PubMed, 590 articles were reviewed. MAIN MEASURES: Reportable financial relationships between authors and industry were evaluated. COIs were considered to have relevance if they were associated with the product(s) mentioned by an article. Primary outcome was favorability, defined as an impression favorable to the product(s) discussed by an article and determined by 3 independent, blinded clinicians for each article. Primary analysis compared Incomplete Self-Disclosure to No COI. Two-level multivariable mixed-effects ordered logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with favorability. KEY RESULTS: A 69% discordance rate existed between industry and self-report in COI disclosure. When authors failed to disclose COI, their conclusions were more likely to favor industry partners than authors without COI (favorable ratings 73% versus 62%, RR 1.18, p = < 0.001). On univariate (any COI 74% versus no COI 62%, RR 1.11, p = < 0.001) and multivariable analyses, any COI was associated with favorability. CONCLUSIONS: All financial COIs (disclosed or undisclosed, relevant or not relevant, research or non-research) influence whether studies report findings favorable to industry sponsors.
BACKGROUND: Financial interactions between industry and healthcare providers are reportable. Substantial discrepancies have been detected between industry and self-report of these conflicts of interest (COIs). OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine if authors who fail to disclose reportable COI are more likely to publish findings that are favorable to industry than authors with no COI. DESIGN: In this blinded, observational study of medical and surgical primary research articles in PubMed, 590 articles were reviewed. MAIN MEASURES: Reportable financial relationships between authors and industry were evaluated. COIs were considered to have relevance if they were associated with the product(s) mentioned by an article. Primary outcome was favorability, defined as an impression favorable to the product(s) discussed by an article and determined by 3 independent, blinded clinicians for each article. Primary analysis compared Incomplete Self-Disclosure to No COI. Two-level multivariable mixed-effects ordered logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with favorability. KEY RESULTS: A 69% discordance rate existed between industry and self-report in COI disclosure. When authors failed to disclose COI, their conclusions were more likely to favor industry partners than authors without COI (favorable ratings 73% versus 62%, RR 1.18, p = &lt; 0.001). On univariate (any COI 74% versus no COI 62%, RR 1.11, p = &lt; 0.001) and multivariable analyses, any COI was associated with favorability. CONCLUSIONS: All financial COIs (disclosed or undisclosed, relevant or not relevant, research or non-research) influence whether studies report findings favorable to industry sponsors.
Entities:
Keywords:
ethics; medical education-professionalism; research Design
Authors: Stephan Heres; John Davis; Katja Maino; Elisabeth Jetzinger; Werner Kissling; Stefan Leucht Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Maria Elena Flacco; Lamberto Manzoli; Stefania Boccia; Lorenzo Capasso; Katina Aleksovska; Annalisa Rosso; Giacomo Scaioli; Corrado De Vito; Roberta Siliquini; Paolo Villari; John P A Ioannidis Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2015-02-07 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Adam G Dunn; Diana Arachi; Joel Hudgins; Guy Tsafnat; Enrico Coiera; Florence T Bourgeois Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-10-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: S Scott Graham; Martha S Karnes; Jared T Jensen; Nandini Sharma; Joshua B Barbour; Zoltan P Majdik; Justin F Rousseau Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-09-19 Impact factor: 3.006