Jeremy S Somerson1, Matthew C Comley2, Ahmed Mansi3, Moni B Neradilek4, Frederick A Matsen5. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA. Electronic address: jeremysomerson@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA. 3. School of Medicine, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA. 4. The Mountain-Whisper-Light Statistics, Seattle, WA, USA. 5. Department of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Author transparency in disclosing potential conflicts of interest when reporting outcomes for shoulder arthroplasty implants is important. Using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Program (OPP) database, we analyzed articles in the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery to evaluate (1) discrepancies between the stated conflicts of interest and associated payments recorded in the database, (2) the magnitude and types of payments received, and (3) possible relationships between industry financial support and positive study outcomes. METHODS: Articles reporting clinical outcomes of shoulder arthroplasty from 2016 and 2017 were reviewed. Articles identifying a specific shoulder arthroplasty implant and having at least 1 author based in the United States were included. Payment types, amounts, and sources were extracted from disclosure statements in the manuscript and considered relevant if they were received from the implant manufacturer. Published disclosure statements were compared against the OPP database. Study outcomes demonstrating a clinical benefit were considered "positive." Payments to authors reporting positive outcomes were compared with those reporting nonpositive outcomes. RESULTS: Implant manufacturers provided $16,051,261 to authors of shoulder arthroplasty publications over a 2-year period. Approximately half of senior authors (46%) received royalty payments, more than 90% of which ($14,910,873; 93%) were reported in disclosure statements. Although authors of articles with positive outcomes received greater payments than those reporting nonpositive outcomes, these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The majority of author disclosure statements accurately reflected the OPP data. Payments were not significantly associated with positive outcomes reported for the specific implant.
BACKGROUND: Author transparency in disclosing potential conflicts of interest when reporting outcomes for shoulder arthroplasty implants is important. Using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Program (OPP) database, we analyzed articles in the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery to evaluate (1) discrepancies between the stated conflicts of interest and associated payments recorded in the database, (2) the magnitude and types of payments received, and (3) possible relationships between industry financial support and positive study outcomes. METHODS: Articles reporting clinical outcomes of shoulder arthroplasty from 2016 and 2017 were reviewed. Articles identifying a specific shoulder arthroplasty implant and having at least 1 author based in the United States were included. Payment types, amounts, and sources were extracted from disclosure statements in the manuscript and considered relevant if they were received from the implant manufacturer. Published disclosure statements were compared against the OPP database. Study outcomes demonstrating a clinical benefit were considered "positive." Payments to authors reporting positive outcomes were compared with those reporting nonpositive outcomes. RESULTS: Implant manufacturers provided $16,051,261 to authors of shoulder arthroplasty publications over a 2-year period. Approximately half of senior authors (46%) received royalty payments, more than 90% of which ($14,910,873; 93%) were reported in disclosure statements. Although authors of articles with positive outcomes received greater payments than those reporting nonpositive outcomes, these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The majority of author disclosure statements accurately reflected the OPP data. Payments were not significantly associated with positive outcomes reported for the specific implant.
Authors: Johann Braithwaite; Nicholas Frane; Matthew J Partan; Peter B White; Cesar Iturriaga; Joshua Gruber; Adam Bitterman Journal: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev Date: 2021-05-07
Authors: J Scott Donoughe; Kiya Shazadeh Safavi; Aryan Rezvani; Nicholas Healy; Daniel C Jupiter; Vinod K Panchbhavi; Cory C Janney Journal: Foot Ankle Orthop Date: 2021-09-14
Authors: W Tanner Cole; Cody Hillman; Adam Corcoran; J Michael Anderson; Michael Weaver; Trevor Torgerson; Micah Hartwell; Matt Vassar Journal: Foot Ankle Orthop Date: 2021-06-23