Undisclosed industry payments rampant in drug-trial papers

Watson, Clare

doi:10.1038/d41586-022-00835-8

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results provide insight into industry funding in the production of decision impact studies. In addition, disclosures of interest are an important, but often poorly reported, aspect of the funding of scientific publications [ 11 , 18 , 44 ]. Even with the caveats of missing and inaccurate disclosures, our analysis explicates the depth and complexity of industry’s involvement with these studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of note, 28% of publications did not include information about authors’ disclosures of interest. Scholars have raised concerns about the pervasive issue of missing, incomplete and inaccurate reporting of disclosures of interest [ 44 , 45 ] and have made calls to enhance transparency by asking journals to enforce reporting and to adopt standard nomenclature [ 18 ]. To ameliorate some of these issues we collected all of the funding data manually (directly from publications, rather than relying on the metadata) and were able to demonstrate that the majority of included decision impact studies reported industry related disclosures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Industry involvement in evidence production for genomic medicine: A bibliometric and funding analysis of decision impact studies

Parker¹,

Hunter²,

Hogarth³

et al. 2023

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Decision impact studies have become increasingly prevalent in genomic medicine, particularly in cancer research. Such studies are designed to provide evidence of clinical utility for genomic tests by evaluating their impact on clinical decision-making. This paper offers insights into understanding of the origins and intentions of these studies through an analysis of the actors and institutions responsible for the production of this new type of evidence. Methods We conducted bibliometric and funding analyses of decision impact studies in genomic medicine research. We searched databases from inception to June 2022. The datasets used were primarily from Web of Science. Biblioshiny, additional R-based applications, and Microsoft Excel were used for publication, co-authorship and co-word analyses. Results 163 publications were included for the bibliometric analysis; a subset of 125 studies were included for the funding analysis. Included publications started in 2010 and increased steadily over time. Decision impact studies were primarily produced for proprietary genomic assays for use in cancer care. The author and affiliate analyses reveal that these studies were produced by ‘invisible colleges’ of researchers and industry actors with collaborations focused on producing evidence for proprietary assays. Most authors had an industry affiliation, and the majority of studies were funded by industry. While studies were conducted in 22 countries, the majority had at least one author from the USA. Discussion This study is a critical step in understanding the role of industry in the production of new types of research. Based on the data collected, we conclude that decision impact studies are industry-conceived and -produced evidence. The findings of this study demonstrate the depth of industry involvement and highlight a need for further research into the use of these studies in decision-making for coverage and reimbursement.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%