Undisclosed payments by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to authors of endoscopy guidelines in the United States

Bansal, Rishi; Khan, Rishad; Scaffidi, Michael A.; Gimpaya, Nikko; Genis, Shai; Bukhari, A; Dhillon, J; Dao, Kathy; Bonneau, Chris W.; Grover, Samir C.

doi:10.1016/j.gie.2019.11.010

Cited by 18 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These novel data from highly influential US general medical journals (NEJM and JAMA) extend a sizable evidence base that has raised doubts about whether self-reported financial disclosure is a trustworthy mechanism for point-of-care databases, 13 clinical practice guidelines, 33,34 or other authoritative resources. 3 Financial COIs are important to identify in order to recognize sources of potential bias in research works published by physicians and other researchers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

A Cross-Sectional Examination of Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures of Physician-Authors Publishing in High-Impact US Medical Journals

Baraldi

Picozzo

Arnold

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To assess the accuracy of self-reported financial conflict-of-interest (COI) disclosures in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) within the requisite disclosure period prior to article submission. Design: Cross-sectional investigation. Data Sources: Original clinical-trial research articles published in NEJM (n = 206) or JAMA (n = 188) from January 1 to December 31, 2017; self-reported COI disclosure forms submitted to NEJM or JAMA with the authors published articles; Open Payments website (from database inception; latest search: August 2019). Main outcome measures: Financial data reported to Open Payments from 2014 to 2016 (time period that included all subjects requisite disclosure windows) were compared to self-reported disclosure forms submitted to the journals. Payments were defined as those not associated with a research study or formal research funding. Payment types were categorized as disclosed, undisclosed, indeterminate, or unrelated. Results: Thirty-one articles from NEJM and 31 articles from JAMA met inclusion criteria. The physician-authors (n = 118) received a combined total of $7.48 million. Of the 106 authors (89.8%) who received payments, 86 (81.1%) received undisclosed payments. The top 23 most highly compensated received $6.32 million, of which $3.00 million (47.6%) was undisclosed. Disclosure rates were the equivalent between the top 23 and the entire sample. Conclusions: High payment amounts, as well as high proportions of undisclosed financial compensation, regardless of amount received, comprised potential COIs for two influential US medical journals. Further research is needed to explain why such high proportions of general payments were undisclosed and whether journals that rely on self-reported COI disclosure need to reconsider their policies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

A Cross-Sectional Examination of Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures of Physician-Authors Publishing in High-Impact US Medical Journals

Baraldi

Picozzo

Arnold

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Six studies examined whether the position of an author on a scientific article influenced discrepant reporting. 36 37 39 42 48 53 The data concerning author position was also conflicting. Some studies found that prominent (first, last or sole) authors were associated with discrepant reporting, while other studies found that other (middle) authors were associated with discrepant reporting.…”

Section: Proportion Of Funds Discrepantmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discrepancies in self-reported financial conflicts of interest disclosures by physicians: a systematic review

Taheri

Kirubarajan

et al. 2021

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThere is a high prevalence of financial conflicts of interest (COI) between physicians and industry.ObjectivesTo conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis examining the completeness of self-reported financial COI disclosures by physicians, and identify factors associated with non-disclosure.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO were searched for eligible studies up to April 2020 and supplemented with material identified in the references and citing articles.Data extraction and synthesisData were independently abstracted by two authors. Data synthesis was performed via systematic review of eligible studies and random-effects meta-analysis.Main outcomes and measuresThe proportion of discrepancies between physician self-reported disclosures and objective payment data was the main outcome. The proportion of discrepant funds and factors associated with non-disclosure were also examined.Results40 studies were included. The pooled proportion of COI discrepancies at the article level was 81% (range: 54%–98%; 95% CI 72% to 89%), 79% at the payment level (range: 71%–89%; 95% CI 67% to 89%), 93% at the authorship level (range: 71%–100%; 95% CI 79% to 100%) and 66% at the author level (range: 8%–99%; 95% CI 48% to 78%). The proportion of funds discrepant was 33% (range: 2%–77%; 95% CI 12% to 58%). There was high heterogeneity between studies across all five analyses (I2=94%–99%). Most undisclosed COI were related to food and beverage, or travel and lodging. While the most common explanation for failure to disclose was perceived irrelevance, a median of 45% of non-disclosed payments were directly or indirectly related to the work. A smaller monetary amount was the most common factor associated with nondisclosure.ConclusionsPhysician self-reports of financial COI are highly discrepant with objective data sources reporting payments from industry. Stronger policies are required to reduce reliance on physician self-reporting of financial COI and address non-compliance.

show abstract

“…We would like to thank Dr Ma et al 1 for their interest in our article regarding the management of GI stromal tumors (GISTs). 2 We appreciate continuing the dialogue between surgeons and endoscopists because currently the management of GISTs is still debated.…”

Section: Responsementioning

confidence: 99%

Liberating endoscopy guidelines from industry influence

Gapp

Chandra

2020

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Undisclosed payments by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to authors of endoscopy guidelines in the United States

Cited by 18 publications

References 63 publications

A Cross-Sectional Examination of Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures of Physician-Authors Publishing in High-Impact US Medical Journals

A Cross-Sectional Examination of Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures of Physician-Authors Publishing in High-Impact US Medical Journals

Discrepancies in self-reported financial conflicts of interest disclosures by physicians: a systematic review

Liberating endoscopy guidelines from industry influence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About