Conflict of Interest in Spine Research Reporting

Walcott, Brian P.; Sheth, Sameer A.; Nahed, Brian V.; Coumans, Jean-Valéry

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044327

Cited by 13 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While previous studies have shown that the presence of conflict of interest tends to affect the significance or direction of results reported, in our study, no such associations were found ( 4 ). The primary reason that we were unable to report on this is due to the small number of papers that were determined to have a conflict of interest.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 89%

“…Companies that produce drugs or medical devices are often susceptible to conflicts of interest, as their funding can impact reporting of the results, and general design and outcomes of medical research trials ( 3 ). This is illustrated by the finding that industry-sponsored studies more frequently express positive results towards that industry or product, than do studies that have alternative sources of funding ( 4 , 5 ). For these reasons, transparency in reporting conflict of interest in medical journals has been a very important topic of discussion over the past few years.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conflict of interest reporting in dentistry meta-analyses: A systematic review

Beyari

Strain²,

Li³

et al. 2014

J Clin Exp Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The issue of reporting conflicts of interest (COI) in medical research has come under scrutiny over the past decade. Absolute transparency is important when dealing with conflicts of interest to provide readers with all essential information required to make an informative decision of the results. The key objective of this study was to examine the prevalence of reporting conflicts of interest in therapeutic dental meta-analyses of Randomized Control Trials (RCTs), and to investigate possible associations with other categorical variables. Study Design: We conducted an extensive literature search across multiple databases to search for relevant review articles for this study. We utilized pre-determined key words, and relied on three reviewers to test and review the use of a data extraction form that was used for the meta-analyses. Data regarding study characteristics, direction of results, and the significance of the results from each meta-analysis were extracted. Results: There were 129 meta-analyses used in this review, and the reporting on conflict of interest was low with only 50 (38.8%) of the articles possessing a conflict of interest statement (either confirming of denying COI). Of these 50 articles, there were only 4 (8%) studies that reported an actual conflict of interest. A statement of conflicts of interest was found in 29 (35.3%) of the papers that reported significant findings, whereas 35% of the papers that reported positive results reported on conflict of interest. Prior to 2009, only 17 (25%) papers reported conflicts of interest, but since 2009, 54.1% of papers collected had a conflict of interest statement. Conclusions: Meta-analyses published in the field of dentistry do not routinely report author conflicts of interest. Although few conflicts appear to exist, the field of dentistry should continue to ensure that best evidence reports provide clear and transparent reporting of potential conflicts of interest in academic journals. Key words:Dentistry, dentition, meta-analysis, quantitative review.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conflict of interest reporting in dentistry meta-analyses: A systematic review

Beyari

Strain²,

Li³

et al. 2014

J Clin Exp Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies in the spine literature have reported similar findings of a high rate of favorable outcomes. 3 , 30 Given the 11% difference in positive outcomes, it is possible that the present study was underpowered to detect a difference. Similarly, publication bias toward positive outcomes may have suppressed the number of available studies with unfavorable outcomes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Is There an Association Between Authors’ Conflicts of Interest and Outcomes in Clinical Studies Involving Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation?

Mayo

Ravella

Onsen

et al. 2021

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) is an increasingly popular technique for the treatment of articular cartilage defects. Because several companies have financial interests in ACI, it is important to consider possible conflicts of interest when evaluating studies reporting outcomes of ACI. Purpose: To determine whether there is an association between authors’ financial conflicts of interest and the outcomes of ACI studies. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: A search of PubMed and MEDLINE databases for “autologous chondrocyte implantation” was performed. Clinical studies published after 2012 through May 15, 2019, and in English were included. Studies were determined to have financial conflicts of interest if any contributing author had relevant conflicts, either self-reported in the published study’s disclosures section or reported online in the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Disclosure database or the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database. The outcomes of each study were rated as favorable, equivocal, or unfavorable based on predefined criteria and then tested for association with conflicts of interest through use of the Fisher exact test. Results: A total of 79 studies met the inclusion criteria. Nearly all studies were of level 3 or 4 evidence. Conflicts of interest were established in 51.90% of studies (n = 41). Conflicts that were not self-reported by the authors were discovered in 18% of studies. The level of evidence was not associated with conflict of interest. No statistically significant difference was found in the rate of favorable outcomes between studies with conflicts (92.68%) and those with no conflicts (81.58%) ( P = .126). Publications by US authors were more likely to have financial conflicts of interest ( P = .003). Conclusion: Favorable results were reported in a majority of studies involving ACI. No statistical association was found between the frequency of favorable outcomes and the presence of financial conflicts of interest, country of authorship, or level of evidence. There was a trend toward more favorable outcomes in studies with conflicts of interest. Additionally, nearly 20% of publications had possible conflicts found online that were not self-reported. It is critical for orthopaedic surgeons to judiciously evaluate published studies and consider financial conflicts of interest before performing ACI techniques on patients.

show abstract

“…Contributing authors seem to have less COI than the reviewers analyzed in the current study. Regarding NASS meetings, a COI was reported for 10% of all presentations in 1985, increasing to 32% in 2002 [ 11 ]. In the 2006 SRS Annual Meeting, there were 27.9% of authors declaring COI [ 12 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of the conflicts of interest disclosed by the program reviewers of the scoliosis research society (SRS) congresses, 2010-2014

Barrios¹,

Alfonso²,

Lloris³

et al. 2018

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundConflicts of interest (COI) between industry and surgeons frequently introduce biases into surgical research. The abstracts submitted for presentation in scientific congresses are usually vetted for any indication of commercial bias. Members of review program committees regularly have recognized qualifications, and therefore certain COI are unavoidable. This study aims to determine the prevalence and magnitude of possible COI among those responsible for the selection of presentations at two important international conferences on spine surgery during a five-year period.MethodologyCOI declarations by those responsible for the final programs of the annual SRS (Scoliosis Research Society) and IMAST (International Meeting of Advanced Spine Technologies) conferences from 2010 to 2014 were collected and analyzed from data published by the corresponding scientific programs. The SRS’s disclosure index did not contain financial amounts; therefore, this aspect could not be analyzed.ResultsFive scientific committees and 117 members (76 individuals) were studied. Of these 76, 41 (53.9%) participated in more than one conflict of interest (>1 COI). Scientific committee members were from 11 countries across 4 continents, but most were from the Unites States (76.9%). Of the 117 program reviewers, 65.8% declared >1 COI and 34.2% reported no COI. The 77 program reviewers who disclosed a potential COI declared a total of 273 COI (mean = 3.54 COI/member). Overall, 36.0%, 26.1%, 10.7%, and 10.7% of the COI corresponded to consultancies, research funds, bureau participation, and advisory board panel participation, respectively. Stockholder reimbursement corresponded to 8.8% of the disclosed COI, and financial or material support were mentioned in 7.4% of COI. Among the COI disclosures, 55 companies were mentioned, and 5 of the top 10 companies involved in spinal device markets were responsible for 65.2% of the COI.ConclusionsMore than two thirds of the members of the SRS and IMAST scientific committees reported COI. Consultancies and research grants account for two thirds of these. Most of the grants and major COI are related to the five companies leading the spinal implant market.

show abstract

Conflict of Interest in Spine Research Reporting

Cited by 13 publications

References 21 publications

Conflict of interest reporting in dentistry meta-analyses: A systematic review

Conflict of interest reporting in dentistry meta-analyses: A systematic review

Is There an Association Between Authors’ Conflicts of Interest and Outcomes in Clinical Studies Involving Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation?

Analysis of the conflicts of interest disclosed by the program reviewers of the scoliosis research society (SRS) congresses, 2010-2014

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About