ImportanceCharacterizing industry-ophthalmology collaborations in research can highlight current areas of focus, improve transparency, and identify potential sources for conflicts of interest.ObjectiveTo assess the trends and characteristics in research payments reported from industry to ophthalmologists from 2014 to 2020.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study used data from the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Open Payments database (OPD), which contains public records of payments between industry and physicians, to identify all ophthalmologists who received industry payments for research purposes between 2014 and 2020. Industry funding was compared with public research funding by the National Eye Institute.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe value and distribution of payments, sponsoring manufacturers, and research products were assessed. Changes in aggregate and per individual-level funding were characterized using formal trend analysis.ResultsFrom 2014 to 2020, 2102 ophthalmologists were reported to have received $825 417 233 in industry research payments. Industry funding increased 203% from $62 924 525 in 2014 to $190 714 508 in 2020 (P = .01). Comparatively, total National Eye Institute research funding during the same period was $5 003 407 764 and increased 6.6% from $701 313 262 in 2014 to $747 929 556 in 2020 (P = .04). The share of all medical research funding from industry directed specifically toward ophthalmology research increased from 1.2% in 2014 to 3.2% in 2020 (P = .04). The distribution of industry payments was skewed, with the top 15 of 108 manufacturers accounting for 93.9% of funding. The top 10% of ophthalmologists (210) were reported to have received 65.7% of all research dollars ($542 299 121). The highest funded research products were anti–vascular endothelial growth factor agents, glaucoma treatments, and intraocular lenses.Conclusions and RelevanceAlthough unequal in distribution, industry-funded research in ophthalmology is extensive and increasing in scope. Industry funding for research is less than that of public funding; however, industry funding increased faster between 2014 and 2020. Results of this study highlight the increasing importance of industry funding in ophthalmology research, but it may also present ethical challenges for clinicians collaborating with industry.

No abstract

Background: Social media, particularly Twitter, has played an increasing role in networking and the dissemination of neurosurgical research. Despite extensive study on financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) influencing medical research, little is known about the function of conflicts of interest on social media and the influence they may have. In this study, we sought to evaluate the FCOI of physicians followed on Twitter by the top three neurosurgical journals. Materials and Methods: We analysed the FCOI of United States (US) physicians followed by the top three neurosurgical journals (Journal of Neurosurgery, World Neurosurgery, Neurosurgery) on Twitter. We determined the FCOIs of each physician using the Open Payments Search Tool located at https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov and summed the data between 2014 and 2021. Results: We examined 2651 Twitter accounts followed by the top three neurosurgical journals on Twitter and determined 705 (26.6%) belonged to US physicians. Of the 705 US physicians, 577 (81.8%) received general payments between 2014 and 2021. After excluding US physicians currently in residency or fellowship (n = 157), this percentage increased to 93.2% (n = 511/548). In total, nearly $70 million in general payments were made between 2014 and 2021. Conclusion: These findings raise questions regarding the interaction between neurosurgical journals and the medical community on Twitter. This study may serve as the basis for

No abstract