Ajay A Myneni1, Taylor Brophy2, Brooks Harmon3, Joseph D Boccardo4, Matthew D Burstein1,5, Steven D Schwaitzberg1, Katia Noyes1,6, Aaron B Hoffman7. 1. Department of Surgery, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, 100 High Street, Buffalo, NY, 14203, USA. 2. Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Environmental Health, School of Public Health and Health Professions, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health and Health Professions, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, University Hospitals, Cleveland, OH, USA. 6. Division of Health Services Policy and Practice, Department of Epidemiology and Environmental Health, School of Public Health and Health Professions, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA. 7. Department of Surgery, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, 100 High Street, Buffalo, NY, 14203, USA. abh2@buffalo.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Accurate disclosure of conflicts of interest (COI) is critical to interpretation of study results, especially when industry interests are involved. We reviewed published manuscripts comparing robot-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) to evaluate the relationship between COI disclosures and conclusions drawn on the procedure benefits and safety profile. METHODS: Searching Pubmed and Embase using key words "cholecystectomy", laparoscopic" and "robotic"/"robot-assisted" retrieved 345 publications. Manuscripts that compared benefits and safety of RAC over LC, had at least one US author and were published between 2014 and 2020 enabling verification of disclosures with reported industry payments in CMS's Open Payments database (OPD) (up to 1 calendar year prior to publication) were included in the analysis (n = 37). RESULTS: Overall, 26 (70%) manuscripts concluded that RAC was equivalent or better than LC (RAC +) and 11 (30%) concluded that RAC was inferior to LC (RAC-). Six manuscripts (5 RAC + and 1 RAC-) did not have clearly stated COI disclosures. Among those that had disclosure statements, authors' disclosures matched OPD records among 17 (81%) of RAC + and 9 (90%) RAC- papers. All 11 RAC- and 17 RAC + (65%) manuscripts were based on retrospective cohort studies. The remaining RAC + papers were based on case studies/series (n = 4), literature review (n = 4) and clinical trial (n = 1). A higher proportion of RAC + (85% vs 45% RAC-) manuscripts used data from a single institution. Authors on RAC + papers received higher amounts of industry payments on average compared to RAC- papers. CONCLUSIONS: It is imperative for authors to understand and accurately disclose their COI while disseminating scientific output. Journals have the responsibility to use a publicly available resource like the OPD to verify authors' disclosures prior to publication to protect the process of scientific authorship which is the foundation of modern surgical care.
INTRODUCTION: Accurate disclosure of conflicts of interest (COI) is critical to interpretation of study results, especially when industry interests are involved. We reviewed published manuscripts comparing robot-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) to evaluate the relationship between COI disclosures and conclusions drawn on the procedure benefits and safety profile. METHODS: Searching Pubmed and Embase using key words "cholecystectomy", laparoscopic" and "robotic"/"robot-assisted" retrieved 345 publications. Manuscripts that compared benefits and safety of RAC over LC, had at least one US author and were published between 2014 and 2020 enabling verification of disclosures with reported industry payments in CMS's Open Payments database (OPD) (up to 1 calendar year prior to publication) were included in the analysis (n = 37). RESULTS: Overall, 26 (70%) manuscripts concluded that RAC was equivalent or better than LC (RAC +) and 11 (30%) concluded that RAC was inferior to LC (RAC-). Six manuscripts (5 RAC + and 1 RAC-) did not have clearly stated COI disclosures. Among those that had disclosure statements, authors' disclosures matched OPD records among 17 (81%) of RAC + and 9 (90%) RAC- papers. All 11 RAC- and 17 RAC + (65%) manuscripts were based on retrospective cohort studies. The remaining RAC + papers were based on case studies/series (n = 4), literature review (n = 4) and clinical trial (n = 1). A higher proportion of RAC + (85% vs 45% RAC-) manuscripts used data from a single institution. Authors on RAC + papers received higher amounts of industry payments on average compared to RAC- papers. CONCLUSIONS: It is imperative for authors to understand and accurately disclose their COI while disseminating scientific output. Journals have the responsibility to use a publicly available resource like the OPD to verify authors' disclosures prior to publication to protect the process of scientific authorship which is the foundation of modern surgical care.
Authors: Mohit Bhandari; Jason W Busse; Dianne Jackowski; Victor M Montori; Holger Schünemann; Sheila Sprague; Derek Mears; Emil H Schemitsch; Dianne Heels-Ansdell; P J Devereaux Journal: CMAJ Date: 2004-02-17 Impact factor: 8.262