Quantifying the variability of financial disclosure information reported by authors presenting at annual spine conferences

Ju, Brian; Miller, Christopher P.; Whang, Peter G.; Grauer, Jonathan N.

doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2010.08.022

Cited by 19 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[17] Comparison analysis between multiple meetings of the same year have identified discrepancies in conflict of interest reporting, however not all meetings in a given year require quantification of the disclosure as was necessary for our analysis. [9] …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conflict of Interest in Spine Research Reporting

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMedical studies are more likely to report favorable findings when a conflict of interest is declared. We aim to quantify and determine the effect of author disclosure of conflict of interest on scientific reporting.MethodsAbstracts from an international spine research meeting (North American Spine Society 2010) were selected that specifically evaluated a device, biologic, or proprietary procedure. They were then made anonymous to reviewers. An item of interest was established in each of the abstracts in order to standardize evaluation. Next, three blinded reviewers independently rated the abstracts as favorable, neutral, or unfavorable with regard to the item of interest. Additionally, the blinded reviewers attempted to predict whether a related disclosure was made. The meeting disclosure index was used to tabulate the minimum US dollar value attributable to disclosures.ResultsOf the 344 total abstracts, 76 met inclusion criteria. In 79%, a related conflict of interest was reported. The amount of the disclosure was incompletely reported in 30% of cases. Where available, it averaged a cumulative minimum of $219,634 USD per abstract. The results of the abstracts were judged to be favorable, neutral, and unfavorable in 63%, 32% and 5% of abstracts, respectively. There was no correlation between the presence of a related disclosure and the findings of the studies (p = 0.81), although interpretation of this is limited by a small sample size and an overall apparent bias to report favorable studies. Additionally, the blinded reviewers were unable to predict whether a related disclosure was made (p = 0.40).ConclusionNo association existed between the presence of a related disclosure and the results of the studies. While the actual compliance with reporting a potential conflict of interest is unable to be determined, the value amount related to the disclosures made was inadequately reported according to meeting guidelines.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[8] In spite of this requirement, there is significant variability in the reporting of financial conflicts of interest at national and international meetings presenting spine research, making interpretation difficult. [9] …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conflict of Interest in Spine Research Reporting

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, it is common knowledge that even small gifts will positively influence the opinion of a person towards the gift-related product [9]. Furthermore, it has been established that the description of financial disclosures widely differs and has even been called vague [10, 11]. In 40 articles, the disclosure was not stated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Financial disclosures of authors involved in spine research: an underestimated source of bias

Bartels¹,

Delye²,

Boogaarts³

2011

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundReporting financial disclosures has become standard practice in both journal publications and during oral forum at scientific meetings. Despite this, the effect of reporting a financial disclosure of any member of an authorgroup, on the tone of the conclusion of an article has gained little attention. This study was performed to determine what effect reporting a financial disclosure has on the conclusion of an article.MethodsA literature search for all articles on interspinous devices and cervical disc prostheses, published from January 1st, 2008 until December 1st, 2010 was performed. Financial disclosures were reported, as were funding by commercially active parties. The tone of the conclusions was graded as positive, neutral or negative.ResultsThe odds ratio (OR) for a positive conclusion in cases where a financial disclosure was reported was 16.5 (95% CI: 4.7–58.1). Effect modification occurs with the presence of funding by a commercially active party. In cases where a financial disclosure was reported and funding was available for the study, the OR was 1.0 (95% CI: 0.08–12.6), whilst the OR was 33.3 (95%CI: 4.2–262.3) if funding was not provided. This discrepancy is mainly due to the large number of articles with a neutral/negative conclusion if the authors failed to report any financial disclosure and were not funded by a commercially active party.ConclusionsReporting a financial disclosure is a potential source of bias. Authors with disclosed financial relationships less often publish articles with a neutral/negative conclusion. This source of bias should certainly be taken into account during the critical appraisal of articles, particularly when the quality of the literature is being assessed.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00586-011-2086-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…Although previous studies have demonstrated disclosure inconsistencies by physicians presenting sports medicine and spine surgery at various orthopaedic conferences[18,19], no previous study has assessed the variability of COI disclosures by physicians presenting orthopaedic trauma research. The purpose of this study was to evaluate disclosures by physicians presenting at the 2012 AAOS and OTA annual meetings in order to quantify COI discrepancies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unfortunately, differences in what constitutes a COI as well as ambiguity between disclosure guidelines between different organizations can make it difficult for physicians to know exactly what to disclose[15,17]. Previous studies have shown variability in the COI disclosures by researchers presenting on spine surgery and sports medicine, possibly due to variability in disclosure policies[18,19]. In fact, some evidence suggests that inaccuracies in COI disclosure can be found throughout the field of orthopaedics as a whole[20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variability in conflict of interest disclosures by physicians presenting trauma research

Wong

Mohan

et al. 2017

WJO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIMTo quantify the variability of financial disclosures by authors presenting orthopaedic trauma research.METHODSSelf-reported authorship disclosure information published for the 2012 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) and Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) meetings was compiled from meeting programs. Both the AAOS and OTA required global disclosures for participants. Data collected included: (1) total number of presenters; (2) number of presenters with financial disclosures; (3) number of disclosures per author; (4) total number of companies supporting each author; and (5) specific type of disclosure. Disclosures made by authors presenting at more than one meeting were then compared for discrepancies.RESULTSOf the 5002 and 1168 authors presenting at the AAOS and OTA annual meetings, respectively, 1649 (33%) and 246 (21.9%) reported a financial disclosure (P < 0.0001). At the AAOS conference, the mean number of disclosures among presenters with disclosures was 4.01 with a range from 1 to 44. The majority of authors with disclosures reported three or more disclosures (n = 876, 53.1%). The most common cited disclosure was as a paid consultant (51.5%) followed by research support (43.0%) and paid speaker (34.8%). Among the 256 physicians with financial disclosures presenting at the OTA conference, the mean number of disclosures was 4.03 with a range from 1 to 22. Similar to the AAOS conference, the majority of authors with any disclosures at the OTA conference reported three or more disclosures (n = 140, 54.7%). Most authors with a disclosure had three or more disclosures and the most common type of disclosure was paid consulting. At the OTA conference, the most commonly cited form of disclosure was paid consultant (54.3%) followed by research support (46.1%) and paid speaker (42.6%). Of the 346 researchers who presented at both meetings, 112 (32.4%) authors were found to have at least one disclosure discrepancy. Among authors with a discrepancy, 36 (32.1%) had three or more discrepancies.CONCLUSIONThere were variability and inconsistencies in financial disclosures by researchers presenting orthopaedic trauma research. Improved transparency of conflict of interest disclosures is warranted among trauma researchers presenting at national meetings.

show abstract

Quantifying the variability of financial disclosure information reported by authors presenting at annual spine conferences

Cited by 19 publications

References 11 publications

Conflict of Interest in Spine Research Reporting

Conflict of Interest in Spine Research Reporting

Financial disclosures of authors involved in spine research: an underestimated source of bias

Variability in conflict of interest disclosures by physicians presenting trauma research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About