Relationships Between Authorship Contributions and Authors' Industry Financial Ties Among Oncology Clinical Trials

Abstract

A B S T R A C T PurposeTo test the hypothesis that authors who play key scientific roles in oncology clinical trials, and who therefore have increased influence over the design, analysis, interpretation or reporting of trials, are more likely than those who do not play such roles to have financial ties to industry. MethodsData were abstracted from all trials (n ϭ 235) of drugs or biologic agents published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology between January 1, 2006 and June 30, 2007. Article-level data included sponsorship, age group (adult v pediatric), phase, single versus multicenter, country (United States v other), and number of authors. Author-level data (n ϭ 2,927) included financial ties (eg, employment, consulting) and performance of key scientific roles (ie, conception/design, analysis/interpretation, or manuscript writing). Associations between performance of key roles and financial ties, adjusting for article-level covariates, were examined using generalized linear mixed models. ResultsOne thousand eight hundred eighty-one authors (64%) reported performing at least one key role, and 842 authors (29%) reported at least one financial tie. Authors who reported performing a key role were more likely than other authors to report financial ties to industry (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 4.3; 99% CI, 3.0 to 6.0; P Ͻ .0001). The association was stronger among trials with, compared with those without, industry funding (OR, 5.0 [99% CI, 3.4 to 7.5] v OR, 2.5 [99% CI, 1.3 to 4.8]), but was present regardless of sponsorship. ConclusionAuthors who perform key roles in the conception and design, analysis, and interpretation, or reporting of oncology clinical trials are more likely than authors who do not perform such roles to have financial ties to industry.

A Systematic Review of Research on the Meaning, Ethics and Practices of Authorship across Scholarly Disciplines

“…Increasing author affiliations with industry were reported in several studies [64], [97], [99], as well as increased odds for authors reporting financial ties to industry [125]. The prevalence of ghost authorship was reported in the range from 2% to 75% [38], [50], [57], [92], [113].…”

Reporting of Funding Sources and Conflict of Interest in the Supportive and Palliative Oncology Literature

“…This represents a significantly lower proportion compared with other disciplines, such as primary care, oncology, internal medicine/neurology, and psychiatry, in which 60%–80% reported funding. 5,22–24 Our finding that supportive/palliative oncology research appears to be underfunded raises serious concerns because high-quality studies, such as randomized controlled trials, often require substantial investment of research dollars. This is supported by our observation that funding reporting is associated with prospective trials and larger sample sizes.…”

“…26–28 Few published studies in supportive/palliative oncology reported industry ties, which is in stark contrast to other oncology articles, in which up to 52% reported pharmaceutical company support. 5,29 The relative lack of industry involvement may have contributed to the limited growth of pharmacological treatments in supportive/palliative oncology.…”

“…1 Competing financial interests among authors, institutions, reviewers, and editors, such as research funding and honoraria, could represent an important source of bias for both the conduction of studies and interpretation of the literature. 2–4 Authors with major roles in study design and execution are more likely to have industry financial ties compared with those without such roles, 5 and industry-sponsored studies are more likely to be interpreted as positive. 6 Appropriate disclosure of all financial relationships that could be perceived as potential conflicts of interest represents an important step toward upholding public trust and scientific integrity.…”

Quality of the supportive and palliative oncology literature: a focused analysis on randomized controlled trials

“…Consistent with other studies outside of the palliative care literature [7,17,35], we also identified pharmaceutical industry funding to be associated with higher study quality. This finding is important since industry-sponsored studies have been shown to be associated with biased investigators [31], study design [19], analysis [23], and interpretation [1,5]. Thus, authors, editors, reviewers, and readers should not only place emphasis on the reporting of methodologic elements, but also the funding source and conflict of interest reporting.…”