Bias in the Evaluation of Conflict of Interest Policies

Sharek, Zachariah S.; Schoen, Robert E.; Loewenstein, George

doi:10.1111/j.1748-720x.2012.00670.x

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In turn, policy support depends partly on people’s judgments of their own and others’ likelihood of engaging in moral and immoral behaviors. Asymmetric self-righteousness predicts that people may be especially likely to resist policies aimed at preventing people’s own unethical behavior, simply because people do not believe they are likely to engage in immoral behaviors in the first place (Sharek, Schoen, & Loewenstein, 2012). In contrast, if people believe that they and others are equally likely to engage in ethical behavior, then policies that promote ethical behavior are less likely to be met with indifference or even resistance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Less Evil Than You: Bounded Self-Righteousness in Character Inferences, Emotional Reactions, and Behavioral Extremes

Klein

Epley

2017

Pers Soc Psychol Bull

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research suggests that self-righteousness is bounded, arising more reliably in evaluations of immoral actions than in evaluations of moral actions. Here, we test four implications of this asymmetry in self-righteousness and the mechanism explaining it. We find that people are less likely to make negative character inferences from their own unethical behavior than from others' unethical behavior (Experiment 1), believe they would feel worse after an unethical action than others (Experiment 2), and believe they are less capable of extreme unethical behavior than others (Experiment 3). We observe weaker self-other differences in evaluations of ethical actions. This occurs partly because people base evaluations of themselves on their own moral intentions, leading to predictable individual differences. People more likely to ascribe cynical motives to their own behavior exhibit a smaller asymmetry in self-righteousness (Experiment 4). Self-righteousness seems better characterized as feeling "less evil than thou" than feeling "holier than thou."

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Less Evil Than You: Bounded Self-Righteousness in Character Inferences, Emotional Reactions, and Behavioral Extremes

Klein

Epley

2017

Pers Soc Psychol Bull

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is no guarantee that open declarations of COI will prevent such bias when researchers accept grant funding (whether or not it is restricted) from companies with vested interests in the outcomes generated. Further, a randomized study (Sharek, Schoen, & Loewenstein, 2012) Moreover, most scientists publish their studies in refereed journals, adding important, though imperfect (Dyer, 2019;John, Loewenstein, Marder, & Callaham, 2019), layers of protection against COI.…”

Section: Cois In Breastfeeding and Human Milk Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is no guarantee that open declarations of COI will prevent such bias when researchers accept grant funding (whether or not it is restricted) from companies with vested interests in the outcomes generated. Further, a randomized study (Sharek, Schoen, & Loewenstein, 2012) showed that the impact of motivational bias may extend to the development and evaluation of COI policies when these policies are developed by those closest to the field. Involving impartial organizations and ethicists in the development of COI policies could help prevent this potential bias.…”

Section: Barriers and Challenges To Breastfeeding And Human Milk Resementioning

confidence: 99%

Breastfeeding and the origins of health: Interdisciplinary perspectives and priorities

Azad

Nickel

Bode

et al. 2020

Maternal & Child Nutrition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most of these guidelines, however, are ambiguous and may not be applicable in managing chronic spinal pain utilizing contemporary IPM. Moreover, quality issues exist, including conflicts of interest and the inclusion or exclusion of significant literature of randomized trials and observational studies (101)(102)(103)(104)(105)(106)(107)(108)(109)(110)(111)(112)(113)(114)(115)(116).…”

Section: Rationale and Importancementioning

confidence: 99%

An Update of Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines for Interventional Techniques in Chronic Spinal Pain. Part II: Guidance and Recommendations

Asipp¹

2013

Pain Phys

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain. Methodology: Systematic assessment of the literature. Evidence: I. Lumbar Spine • The evidence for accuracy of diagnostic selective nerve root blocks is limited; whereas for lumbar provocation discography, it is fair. • The evidence for diagnostic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and diagnostic sacroiliac intraarticular injections is good with 75% to 100% pain relief as criterion standard with controlled local anesthetic or placebo blocks. • The evidence is good in managing disc herniation or radiculitis for caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; fair for axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation, radiculitis or facet joint pain with caudal, and interlaminar epidural injections, and limited for transforaminal epidural injections; fair for spinal stenosis with caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; and fair for post surgery syndrome with caudal epidural injections and limited with transforaminal epidural injections. • The evidence for therapeutic facet joint interventions is good for conventional radiofrequency, limited for pulsed radiofrequency, fair to good for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, and limited for intraarticular injections. • For sacroiliac joint interventions, the evidence for cooled radiofrequency neurotomy is fair; limited for intraarticular injections and periarticular injections; and limited for both pulsed radiofrequency and conventional radiofrequency neurotomy. • For lumbar percutaneous adhesiolysis, the evidence is fair in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to post surgery syndrome and spinal stenosis. • For intradiscal procedures, the evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) and biaculoplasty is limited to fair and is limited for discTRODE. • For percutaneous disc decompression, the evidence is limited for automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression, and Dekompressor; and limited to fair for nucleoplasty for which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued a noncoverage decision. II. Cervical Spine • The evidence for cervical provocation discography is limited; whereas the evidence for diagnostic cervical facet joint nerve blocks is good with a criterion standard of 75% or greater relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is good for cervical interlaminar epidural injections for cervical disc herniation or radiculitis; fair for axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post cervical surgery syndrome. • The evidence for therapeutic cervical facet joint interventions is fair for conventional cervical radiofrequency neurotomy and cervical medial branch blocks, and limited for cervical intraarticular injections. III. Thoracic Spine • The evidence is limited for thoracic provocation discography and is good for diagnostic accuracy of thoracic facet joint nerve blocks with a criterion standard of at least 75% pain relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is fair for thoracic epidural injections in managing thoracic pain. • The evidence for therapeutic thoracic facet joint nerve blocks is fair, limited for radiofrequency neurotomy, and not available for thoracic intraarticular injections. IV. Implantables • The evidence is fair for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in managing patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and limited for implantable intrathecal drug administration systems. V. Anticoagulation • There is good evidence for risk of thromboembolic phenomenon in patients with antithrombotic therapy if discontinued, spontaneous epidural hematomas with or without traumatic injury in patients with or without anticoagulant therapy to discontinue or normalize INR with warfarin therapy, and the lack of necessity of discontinuation of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including low dose aspirin prior to performing interventional techniques. • There is fair evidence with excessive bleeding, including epidural hematoma formation with interventional techniques when antithrombotic therapy is continued, the risk of higher thromboembolic phenomenon than epidural hematomas with discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy prior to interventional techniques and to continue phosphodiesterase inhibitors (dipyridamole, cilostazol, and Aggrenox). • There is limited evidence to discontinue antiplatelet therapy with platelet aggregation inhibitors to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and/or to continue antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel, ticlopidine, prasugrel) during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic fatalities. • There islimited evidence in reference to newer antithrombotic agents dabigatran (Pradaxa) and rivaroxan (Xarelto) to discontinue to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and are continued during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic events. Conclusion: Evidence is fair to good for 62% of diagnostic and 52% of therapeutic interventions assessed. Disclaimer: The authors are solely responsible for the content of this article. No statement on this article should be construed as an official position of ASIPP. The guidelines do not represent “standard of care.” Key words: Interventional techniques , chronic spinal pain, diagnostic blocks, therapeutic interventions, facet joint interventions, epidural injections, epidural adhesiolysis, discography, radiofrequency, disc decompression, spinal cord stimulation, intrathecal implantable systems

show abstract

Bias in the Evaluation of Conflict of Interest Policies

Cited by 15 publications

References 14 publications

Less Evil Than You: Bounded Self-Righteousness in Character Inferences, Emotional Reactions, and Behavioral Extremes

Less Evil Than You: Bounded Self-Righteousness in Character Inferences, Emotional Reactions, and Behavioral Extremes

Breastfeeding and the origins of health: Interdisciplinary perspectives and priorities

An Update of Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines for Interventional Techniques in Chronic Spinal Pain. Part II: Guidance and Recommendations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About