Potential Bias in Image-Guided Procedure Research: A Retrospective Analysis of Disclosed Conflicts of Interest and Open Payment Records

Abstract

PurposeTo assess the prevalence of positive conflicts of interest (COI) disclosures in United States–based interventional radiology (IR) research as well as the level of agreement between disclosed financial relationships and Open Payment Data for top-cited image-guided procedure research. Materials and MethodsAll publications in volume 30 (2019) of the Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology (JVIR) were reviewed to estimate the prevalence of COI disclosures in IR research. Publications were categorized as primary research, systematic review, or other. The prevalence was subsequently compared across JVIR publication subtypes and categories and on the basis of whether they were device-focused publications using χ2 tests. Additionally, the Web of Science database was searched for the top 10 most cited studies of 10 common image-guided procedures with available U.S. physician payment data. The payments were categorized as historical (>1 year prior to publication) or active (<1 year prior to publication) and compared with the disclosed financial COIs using 1-way analysis of variance. ResultsPositive COI disclosures were present in 114 (29%) of the 397 publications in JVIR volume 30. Positive COI disclosures were most prevalent in standards of practice (50%, P = .01) and more prevalent in device-focused publications (54% vs 23%, P < .01). Among the 396 authors of 100 United States–based top-cited image-guided procedure publications, 383 (97%) failed to disclose at least 1 active financial relationship, with an average of $57,937 in undisclosed payments per publication. ConclusionsCOI are prevalent in IR, similar to other areas of healthcare research, and COI in top-cited image-guided procedure research are often underreported.