Discrepancies in Financial Conflicts of Interest in Robotic Cardiothoracic Surgery Studies

Abstract

BackgroundIn academic surgery publications, self-reporting of conflicts of interest (COI) has often proved to be inaccurate. Here, we review the accuracy of COI disclosures for studies related to the use of robotic technology in cardiothoracic surgery and evaluate factors associated with increased discrepancies. MethodsA literature search identified robotic surgery–related studies with at least 1 American author published between January 2015 and December 2020 from 3 major American cardiothoracic surgery journals (The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, and Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery). Industry payments from Intuitive Surgical (Intuitive) were collected with use of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Open Payments database. COI discrepancies were identified by comparing author declaration statements with payments found for the year of publication and the year prior (24-month period). ResultsA total of 144 studies (764 authors) were identified. At least 1 author of 112 studies (78%) had received payments from Intuitive. At least 1 author of 98 studies (68%) had received an undeclared payment from Intuitive. Authors who accurately disclosed payments received significantly higher median payments compared with authors who did not ($16,511 [interquartile range, $6389-$159,035] vs $1762 [interquartile range, $338-$7500]; P < .0001). Last authors were significantly more likely to have a COI discrepancy compared with middle and first authors (P = .018; P = .0015). ConclusionsMost studies investigating the use of robotic technology in cardiothoracic surgery did not accurately declare COI with Intuitive. This study highlights the need for improved accuracy of reporting industry sponsorship by publishing authors.