Financial Disclosures in Academic Publications and the Sunshine Act: A Concordance Study

Abstract

Aims: To assess the concordance between conflicts of interest reported by physicians in three major scientific journals and industry-reported payments available through the Open Payments Program (OPP) database. Study Design: Comparative cross-sectional surveys. Place and Duration of Study: United States allopathic and osteopathic physicians with publications in American Journal of Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and Ophthalmology accepted after January 1, 2014 and published from May 2014 through October 2014. Methodology: We compared physicians’ self-reported conflicts of interest in their academic publications to industry-reported payments in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services OPP Original Research Article Yee et al.; BJMMR, 10(5): 1-6, 2015; Article no.BJMMR.19640 2 database. Authors were categorized based on concordance between self-reported disclosures and payments listed in the database. Payments were designated as disclosed or undisclosed. Results: Of the 670 authors surveyed, 367 (54.8%) were in perfect concordance with the OPP database; 68 (10.1%) authors made disclosures beyond those in the database but had no undisclosed ties; 235 (35.1%) authors had one or more undisclosed payments. Disclosed and undisclosed payments totaled $1.46 million and $1.81 million, respectively. Conclusion: In three major ophthalmology journals, a significant discrepancy exists between conflicts of interest reported by physician authors and payments found in the OPP database. This lack of concordance raises concerns about incomplete physician disclosure, inaccurate reporting, inadequate vetting, and ambiguity over financial relevance, all of which undermine confidence in the disclosure process.