Review and Analysis of Publication Trends over Three Decades in Three High Impact Medicine Journals

Abstract

ContextOver the past three decades, industry sponsored research expanded in the United States. Financial incentives can lead to potential conflicts of interest (COI) resulting in underreporting of negative study results.ObjectiveWe hypothesized that over the three decades, there would be an increase in: a) reporting of conflict of interest and source of funding; b) percentage of randomized control trials c) number of patients per study and d) industry funding.Data sources and Study SelectionOriginal articles published in three calendar years (1988, 1998, and 2008) in The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of American Medical Association were collected.Data ExtractionStudies were reviewed and investigational design categorized as prospective and retrospective clinical trials. Prospective trials were categorized into randomized or non-randomized and single-center or multi-center trials. Retrospective trials were categorized as registries, meta-analyses and other studies, mostly comprising of case reports or series. Study outcomes were categorized as positive or negative depending on whether the pre-specified hypothesis was met. Financial disclosures were researched for financial relationships and profit status, and accordingly categorized as government, non-profit or industry sponsored. Studies were assessed for reporting COI.Results1,671 original articles were included in this analysis. Total number of published studies decreased by 17% from 1988 to 2008. Over 20 year period, the proportion of prospective randomized trials increased from 22 to 46% (p < 0.0001); whereas the proportion of prospective non-randomized trials decreased from 59% to 27% (p < 0.001). There was an increase in the percentage of prospective randomized multi-center trials from 11% to 41% (p < 0.001). Conversely, there was a reduction in non-randomized single-center trials from 47% to 10% (p < 0.001). Proportion of government funded studies remained constant, whereas industry funded studies more than doubled (17% to 40%; p < 0.0001). The number of studies with negative results more than doubled (10% to 22%; p<0.0001). While lack of funding disclosure decreased from 35% to 7%, COI reporting increased from 2% to 84% (p < 0.0001).ConclusionImproved reporting of COI, clarity in financial sponsorship, increased publication of negative results in the setting of larger and better designed clinical trials represents a positive step forward in the scientific publications, despite the higher percentage of industry funded studies.

Post retraction citations among manuscripts reporting a radiology-imaging diagnostic method

“…Furthermore, scientific productivity in academia is traditionally assessed based on the number of publications. Consequently, new scientific journals appear even if some of them are classified as 'predatory' (lacking integrity in the publishing process usually without an accurate peer review process, fake impact factor or editorial team, issues that could be difficult to detect) and the number of published scientific articles increases annually [1][2][3]. The retraction of an article is used to alert scientists to serious problems identified with a published article and follows the Committee on Publication Ethics retraction guideline [4].…”

A Quantitative and Narrative Evaluation of Goodman and Gilman’s Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics

“…Conflicts of interest (CoIs) were defined as "a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest" [13]. The transparency of CoI has become increasingly ubiquitous for primary sources [14] including clinical trials [15], undergraduate medical education [16], continuing medical education [17], point of care computerized sources [18], meta-analyses [19], and clinical practice guidelines [20]. The US Physician Payments Sunshine Act of 2010 required that all compensation (≥$10) to doctors of medicine, osteopathy, dentistry, dental surgery, podiatry, optometry, and chiropractic medicine (i.e., PharmDs, PhDs, PAs, and NPs were not covered although this subsequently changed for PAs and NPs) from manufacturers of drugs and medical devices be reported to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and made available on its public website.…”

Evolution of methodology and reporting of emergency medicine quantitative research over a 20-year period

“…While no study reported these in 1997, the large majority did so in 2017. Ivanov et al 20 concluded that improved reporting of conflicts of interest and clarity around financial sponsorship represent a positive step forward. Journals now require authors to report conflicts of interests.…”