Conflict Of Interest For Authors Research Articles

Cannabis companies and the sponsorship of scientific research: A cross-sectional Canadian case study.

Corporations across sectors engage in the conduct, sponsorship, and dissemination of scientific research. Industry sponsorship of research, however, is associated with research agendas, outcomes, and conclusions that are favourable to the sponsor. The legalization of cannabis in Canada provides a useful case study to understand the nature and extent of the nascent cannabis industry's involvement in the production of scientific evidence as well as broader impacts on equity-oriented research agendas. We conducted a cross-sectional, descriptive, meta-research study to describe the characteristics of research that reports funding from, or author conflicts of interest with, Canadian cannabis companies. From May to August 2021, we sampled licensed, prominent Canadian cannabis companies, identified their subsidiaries, and searched each company name in the PubMed conflict of interest statement search interface. Authors of included articles disclosed research support from, or conflicts of interest with, Canadian cannabis companies. We included 156 articles: 82% included at least one author with a conflict of interest and 1/3 reported study support from a Canadian cannabis company. More than half of the sampled articles were not cannabis focused, however, a cannabis company was listed amongst other biomedical companies in the author disclosure statement. For articles with a cannabis focus, prevalent topics included cannabis as a treatment for a range of conditions (15/72, 21%), particularly chronic pain (6/72, 8%); as a tool in harm reduction related to other substance use (10/72, 14%); product safety (10/72, 14%); and preclinical animal studies (6/72, 8%). Demographics were underreported in empirical studies with human participants, but most included adults (76/84, 90%) and, where reported, predominantly white (32/39, 82%) and male (49/83, 59%) participants. The cannabis company-funded studies included people who used drugs (37%) and people prescribed medical cannabis (22%). Canadian cannabis companies may be analogous to peer industries such as pharmaceuticals, alcohol, tobacco, and food in the following three ways: sponsoring research related to product development, expanding indications of use, and supporting key opinion leaders. Given the recent legalization of cannabis in Canada, there is ample opportunity to create a policy climate that can mitigate the harms of criminalization as well as impacts of the "funding effect" on research integrity, research agendas, and the evidence base available for decision-making, while promoting high-priority and equity-oriented independent research.

Evaluation of financial conflicts of interest and quality of evidence in Japanese gastroenterology clinical practice guidelines.

Clinical practice guidelines assist healthcare professionals in providing evidence-based care. However, pharmaceutical companies' financial interests often influence guideline content. This study aimed to elucidate the magnitude of financial ties among Japanese gastroenterology guideline authors and the pharmaceutical industry. Using pharmaceutical company disclosed payment data, we evaluated financial conflicts of interest (COI) among Japanese Society of Gastroenterology guideline authors between 2016 and 2021. Additionally, we assessed the evidence quality supporting guideline recommendations and associations with financial COI. Finally, we evaluated author COI management during guideline development against global standards. Overall, 88.2% (231/262) of guideline authors received a median of $12 968 (interquartile range [IQR]: $1839-$70 374) in payments between 2016 and 2019 for lectures, writings, and consulting. Chairpersons received significantly higher payments (median: $86 444 [IQR: $15 455-$165 679]). Notably, 41 (15.6%) authors had undeclared payments exceeding declaration requirements. Low or very low-quality evidence supported 41.0% of recommendations. There was a negative association between the median 4-year payment per author and the proportion of recommendations based on low-quality evidence (odds ratio: 0.966 [95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.945-0.987], P=0.002) and positive association with moderate-quality evidence (odds ratio: 1.018 [95% CI: 1.011-1.025], P<0.001). Still, the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology guideline development process remains less transparent, with insufficient COI policies relative to global standards. There were extensive financial COI between pharmaceutical companies and guideline authors, and more than 40% of recommendations were based on low-quality evidence. More rigorous and transparent COI policies for guideline development adhering to global standards are warranted.

Evidence for stratified conflicts of interest policies in research contexts: a methodological review

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to conduct a methodological review of research on the effects of conflicts of interest (COIs) in research contexts.DesignMethodological review.Data sourcesOvid.Eligibility criteriaStudies published between 1986...

Mortality and adverse events of hemoadsorption with CytoSorb® in critically ill patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BackgroundThe effects and safety of extracorporeal hemoadsorption with CytoSorb® in critically ill patients with inflammatory conditions are controversial.MethodsWe performed a systematic review with meta‐analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of randomized‐controlled trials to assess the mortality and safety of CytoSorb® therapy in critically ill patients with inflammatory conditions. Electronic databases were searched up to April 2022. The primary outcome was mortality at longest follow‐up and secondary outcomes included various adverse event (AE) outcomes. Conflict of interest and funding of each trial were assessed. We calculated relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsFourteen published (n = 764) and 4 unpublished (n = 111) trials were included. Eight trials were performed in medical ICU patients and 10 in complex cardiac surgery. Ten trials had significant industrial funding or an author conflict of interest. Hemoadsorption with CytoSorb® was associated with higher mortality at latest follow‐up (16 trials, n = 807, 120 of 402 [29.85%] patients in the CytoSorb® group vs. 98 of 405 [24.20%] patients in the control group, RR = 1.24 [95% CI, 1.04–1.49], p = .02, [TSA‐adjusted CI, 0.92–1.68]) and at 30‐days or in‐hospital (11 trials, n = 727; RR = 1.41 [95% CI, 1.06–1.88], p = .02, [TSA‐adjusted CI, 0.44–4.62]). Only one trial reported the definition of adverse event, while detailed results were reported in 3 trials; the risk of adverse events was not higher with CytoSorb®. Certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low.ConclusionLow certainty of evidence showed that the use of CytoSorb® might increase mortality in critically ill patients with inflammatory conditions. Adverse events were frequent but underreported and not systematically evaluated. Industrial funding and conflict of interest were common. Considerable uncertainty about the findings does not allow firm conclusions and suggests a need for high‐quality randomized trials to clarify mortality and adverse events related to CytoSorb®.Editorial CommentHemoadsorption with CytoSorb® have been used in critically ill patients despite lack of high quality data from RCTs suggesting any patient‐important benefits. The findings from this systematic review and meta‐analysis suggests an increased risk of adverse events including mortality. With no apparent benefits and at the same time risk of harm, use of hemoadsorption with CytoSorb® in daily clinical practice cannot be recommended at this time.

The impact of mandatory conflict of interest disclosures on editors' manuscript acceptance decisions: A cross-sectional observational study.

ObjectiveAlthough current ethical standards mandate conflict of interest (COI) disclosure by authors of peer‐reviewed publications, it is unknown whether disclosure affects a manuscript's fate. Our objective was to identify associations between author COI disclosure and editorial decision to publish.MethodsWe performed a cross‐sectional observational study of editorial decisions for original research and brief research report manuscripts submitted to Annals of Emergency Medicine between June 2014 and January 2018 using data from the journal's editorial decision software and data from a prior study that characterized author COI for the same manuscripts. Outcomes of interest included final editor decision to publish (primary), initial editor decision, and number of revisions. We compared outcomes for manuscripts with COI versus those without and by type of COI (commercial/government/other).ResultsOut of 1312 manuscripts in the sample, 65.1% had no COI declarations, and 34.9% had one or more. Overall likelihood of editorial decision to publish was 13.5% (115/854) for articles without COI and 26.9% (123/458) for those with COI. Overall likelihood of editorial decision to publish was 19.8% (19/96) for articles with commercial COI only versus 33.3% (35/105) for those with government COI only.ConclusionsArticles with author‐reported COI were more likely to be published than those without such a declaration. Additionally, results suggest that reports of government COI are associated with improved chance of publication. Authorities should consider relaxing COI requirements temporarily to allow investigators to perform larger scale, randomized controlled studies of the impact of mandated COI disclosure.

Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Systematic Reviews Regarding the Management of Chronic Non-Cancer Pain with Opioids Analgesics.

We sought to determine whether author conflict of interest (disclosed or undisclosed) or industry sponsorship influenced the favorability of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating the use of opioid analgesics for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. Our search included the MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) databases. Study sponsorship was determined using the funding statement provided in each systematic review. Author COI information was extracted from the COI disclosure statement. This information was cross-referenced with information available on the CMS Open Payments Database, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and previously published COI disclosures. Eight systematic reviews authored by 83 authors were included. Of these authors, 19 (23.0%) were found to have a COI, of which the majority (17/19; 89.5%) had at least one undisclosed COI. Despite nearly one-quarter of authors having a COI, we found no association between the presence of a COI and the favorability of results (P = 0.64) or conclusions (P = 0.07). COI are common and frequently undisclosed among systematic review authors investigating opioid analgesics for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. Despite a high prevalence of COI, we did not find that these author-industry relationships had a significant influence on the favorability of results and conclusions; however, our findings should be considered a lower bound estimate of the true influence author COI have on outcomes of pain medicine systematic reviews secondary to the low sample size included in the present study.

Association between industry sponsorship and author conflicts of interest with outcomes of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of interventions for opioid use disorder

IntroductionAuthor conflicts of interest (COI) and industry sponsorship may lead to biased research results and conclusions. Considering the direct influence that systematic reviews have on patient care, including the management of patients being treated for opioid use disorders (OUD), these studies should be free of industry bias. Thus, we sought to determine whether a relationship exists between COI and the favorability of systematic review outcomes using a sample of systematic reviews regarding OUD interventions. MethodsWe searched MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analysis related to OUD treatment. The study team performed all data extraction in a masked duplicate fashion. We searched for undisclosed COI for each systematic review author in 3 databases––the CMS Open Payments database, Dollars for Profs, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The research team quantified results using descriptive statistics. We evaluated associations between review characteristics using Fisher's exact tests, when possible. ResultsThis article includes seventeen systematic reviews and meta-analyses with 81 authors. We found that 25 authors (30.9%) had some form of COI, and 22 (of 25, 88.0%) authors had an undisclosed COI. However, no significant association existed between COI and favorability of results and conclusions. Notably, two systematic reviews (of 17; 11.76%) were industry-sponsored. Similarly, we found no association between the study sponsor source and the favorability of systematic review results and conclusions. ConclusionsOur results suggest the favorability of systematic review results and conclusions are not influenced by author COI or industry sponsorship. However, nearly one-fourth of authors had an undisclosed COI, further emphasizing the need for standardization and adherence to COI disclosure policies within addiction medicine literature.

Association between author conflicts of interest and industry‐sponsorship with the favorability of outcomes of systematic reviews focusing on treatments of erectile dysfunction

Authors' conflicts of interest and industry sponsorship have been shown to influence study outcomes. We aimed to determine whether author conflicts of interest and industry sponsorship influenced the nature of results and conclusions of systematic reviews focusing on treatment interventions for erectile dysfunction. We searched PubMed and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focusing on erectile dysfunction treatments published between September 1, 2016, and June 2, 2020. Authors' conflicts of interest were collected from the systematic reviews' disclosure statements. These disclosures were verified using the information provided by the Open Payments, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, and US Patent and Trademark Office databases and from previously published disclosure statements. Our study included 24 systematic reviews authored by 138 authors. Nineteen authors (13.8%) were found to have conflicts of interest (disclosed, undisclosed, or both). No authors completely disclosed all conflicts. Nine reviews (37.5%) contained at least one author with conflicts of interest; of which eight reported narrative results favoring the treatment group, and seven reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Of the 15 (62.5%) reviews without a conflicted author, 11 reported results favoring the treatment group, and 12 reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. The results and conclusions of systematic reviews for erectile dysfunction treatments did not appear to be influenced by authors who reported conflicts of interest. However, our search algorithm relied on the US-based Open Payments database and a large percentage of reviews in our study were produced by authors with international affiliations. Our study results underscore the difficulties in conducting such analyses. Although we found that undisclosed conflicts of interest (COI) were problematic among systematic reviews of erectile dysfunction treatment, only 14% of authors in our sample possessed them and these COI did not appear to influence the favorability of systematic review outcomes.

Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Investigating Interventions for Melanoma: Cross-sectional Literature Study.

Previous studies have highlighted the potential influence that industry relationships may have on the outcomes of medical research. We aimed to determine the prevalence of author conflicts of interest (COIs) in systematic reviews focusing on melanoma interventions, as well as to determine whether the presence of these COIs were associated with an increased likelihood of reporting favorable results and conclusions. This cross-sectional study included systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses focusing on interventions for melanoma. We searched MEDLINE and Embase for eligible systematic reviews published between September 1, 2016, and June 2, 2020. COI disclosures were cross-referenced with information from the CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) Open Payments database, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and previously published COI disclosure statements. Results were quantified using descriptive statistics, and relationships were evaluated by Fisher exact tests. Of the 23 systematic reviews included in our sample, 12 (52%) had at least one author with a COI. Of these 12 reviews, 7 (58%) reported narrative results favoring the treatment group and 9 (75%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Of the 11 systematic reviews without a conflicted author, 4 (36%) reported results favoring the treatment group and 5 (45%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. We found no significant association between the presence of author COIs and the favorability of results (P=.53) or conclusions (P=.15). Author COIs did not appear to influence the outcomes of systematic reviews regarding melanoma interventions. Clinicians and other readers of dermatology literature should be cognizant of the influence that industry may have on the nature of reported outcomes, including those from systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Do Author Conflicts of Interest and Industry Sponsorship Influence Outcomes of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Regarding Glaucoma Interventions? A Cross-sectional Analysis.

In our sample of systematic reviews focusing on treatments for glaucoma, reviews conducted by authors with a conflict of interest were more likely to reach favorable conclusions compared with reviews without conflicted authors. Previous studies have demonstrated that authors' conflict of interest can influence outcomes of systematic reviews. Therefore, we aimed to determine whether the presence of 1 of more conflicts was associated with more favorable results and conclusions in systematic reviews of glaucoma interventions. MEDLINE and Embase were searched for systematic reviews of glaucoma treatments published between September 1, 2016 and June 2, 2020. Author conflicts of interest were located using multiple databases (eg, CMS Open Payments Database, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, the United States Patent and Trademark Office USPTO) and previously published disclosure statements. Study sponsorship was determined using each review's funding disclosure statement. Our study included 26 systematic reviews conducted by 108 authors. Of these reviews, 9 (35%) were conducted by at least 1 author with an undisclosed conflict of interest. Of those 9, 3 (33%) reported results favoring the treatment group, and 5 (56%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Of the 17 systematic reviews with no conflicted authors, 1 (6%) reported results favoring the treatment group, and 2 (12%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. The Fisher exact tests demonstrated that these differences held a statistically significant association between author conflicts and the favorability of the reviews' conclusions toward the treatment group (P=0.04). We found that systematic reviews conducted by 1 or more authors with conflicts of interest were more likely than those with no conflicted authors to draw favorable conclusions about the investigated intervention.

Disclosure of study funding and author conflicts of interest in press releases and the news: a retrospective content analysis with two cohorts

ObjectivesTo examine how often study funding and author conflicts of interest are stated in science and health press releases and in corresponding news; and whether disclosure in press releases is...

Nursing Journal Policies on Disclosure and Management of Conflicts of Interest.

Concerns about conflicts of interest (COIs) in research and health care are well known, but recent reports of authors failing to disclose potential COIs in journal articles threatens the integrity of the scholarly literature. While many nursing journals have published editorials on this topic, review of nursing journal policies on and experiences with COIs has not been reported. The purposes of this study were to examine the extent to which nursing journals have COI policies and require disclosures by authors, peer reviewers, editorial board members, and editors who have a role in journal content decisions. This cohort study addressed top-ranked nursing journal policies about and experiences with COIs in scholarly publications. An analysis of COI policies in the instructions for authors of 118 journals listed in the nursing category of Clarivate Analytics Journal Citation Reports was completed in 2019. An electronic survey of the editors was also conducted to determine their awareness and experience with COI policies for their journals. Characteristics of the journals and policies were assessed. Information on polices about COIs for editors and peer reviewers were also reviewed. A content analysis of the policies included assessment of best practices and gaps in requirements. For the journal policy assessment, 116 journals that publish only in the English language were eligible. The majority (n = 113; 97.4%) of journals had a statement on COI policies for authors, but only 42 (36.2%) had statements for peer reviewers and only 37 (31.9%) had statements for editors. A total of 117 journal editors were sent the survey. One declined to participate, leaving a total of 116 eligible editors; 82 (70.6%) responded and 34 did not respond. Sixty-seven (81.7%) of the 82 editors indicated that their journal had a policy about COIs for authors. Seventy-four editors (63.7%) responded to the question about their journal having a policy about COIs for peer reviewers and editors. Thirty-three (44.5%) of the respondents indicated their journal had a COI policy for peer reviewers, and 29 (39.1%) stated they had a policy for editors. Few editors (n = 7; 9%) indicated that they had encountered problems pertaining to author COIs. Findings from this study may help promote ethical publication practices through comprehensive policies on disclosure and management of nursing journal authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Declarations of potential conflicts of interest promote transparency and allows the consumer of research to take that into consideration when considering the findings of a study.

Relationships among commercial practices and author conflicts of interest in biomedical publishing.

Recently, concerns have been raised over the potential impacts of commercial relationships on editorial practices in biomedical publishing. Specifically, it has been suggested that certain commercial relationships may make editors more open to publishing articles with author conflicts of interest (aCOI). Using a data set of 128,781 articles published in 159 journals, we evaluated the relationships among commercial publishing practices and reported author conflicts of interest. The 159 journals were grouped according to commercial biases (reprint services, advertising revenue, and ownership by a large commercial publishing firm). 30.6% (39,440) of articles were published in journals showing no evidence of evaluated commercial publishing relationships. 33.9% (43,630) were published in journals accepting advertising and reprint fees; 31.7% (40,887) in journals owned by large publishing firms; 1.2% (1,589) in journals accepting reprint fees only; and 2.5% (3,235) in journals accepting only advertising fees. Journals with commercial relationships were more likely to publish articles with aCOI (9.2% (92/1000) vs. 6.4% (64/1000), p = 0.024). In the multivariate analysis, only a journal’s acceptance of reprint fees served as a significant predictor (OR = 2.81 at 95% CI, 1.5 to 8.6). Shared control estimation was used to evaluate the relationships between commercial publishing practices and aCOI frequency in total and by type. BCa-corrected mean difference effect sizes ranged from -1.0 to 6.1, and confirm findings indicating that accepting reprint fees may constitute the most significant commercial bias. The findings indicate that concerns over the influence of industry advertising in medical journals may be overstated, and that accepting fees for reprints may constitute the largest risk of bias for editorial decision-making.

Undisclosed Conflict of Interest Is Prevalent in Spine Literature.

Cohort study. The aim of this study was to determine the rate of accurate conflict of interest (COI) disclosure within three prominent subspecialty Spine journals during a 4-year period. Industry-physician relationships are crucial for technological advancement in spine surgery but serve as a source of bias in biomedical research. The Open Payments Database (OPD) was established after 2010 to increase financial transparency. All research articles published from 2014 to 2017 in Spine, The Spine Journal (TSJ), and the Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine (JNS) were reviewed in this study. In these articles, all author's COI statements were recorded. The OPD was queried for all author entries within the disclose period of the journal. Discrepancies between the author's self-reported COIs and the documented COIs from OPD were recorded. A total of 6816 articles meeting inclusion criteria between 2014 and 2017 in Spine, TSJ, and JNS with 39,869 contributing authors. Overall, 15.8% of all authors were found to have an OPD financial relationship. Of 2633 authors in Spine with financial disclosures, 77.1% had accurate financial disclosures; 42.5% and 41.0% of authors with financial relationships in the OPD had accurate financial disclosures in TSJ and JNS, respectively. The total value of undisclosed conflicts of interest between 2014 and 2017 was $421 million with $1.48 billion in accurate disclosures. Of undisclosed payments, 68.7% were <$1000 and only 7.2% were >$10,000. Undisclosed payments included $180 million in research funding and $188 million in royalties. This study demonstrates that undisclosed COI is highly prevalent for authors in major Spine journals. This study indicates that there remains a need to standardize definitions and financial thresholds for significant COI as well as to shift the reporting burden for COI to journals who actively review potential COIs instead of relying on self-reporting. 3.

Undisclosed conflicts of interest in German-language textbooks of anesthesiology, critical care, and emergency medicine

BackgroundMedical textbooks are important throughout postgraduate internship, residency and fellowship programs but authors’ conflicts of interest (COI) are rarely disclosed. In anesthesiology, two high-profile cases of research fraud/unethical publishing have previously been identified. This study evaluated whether anesthesiology textbooks in German include controversial recommendations on hydroxyethyl starch (HES) and whether authors had undisclosed COI. MethodsForty-five anesthesiology, critical care, and emergency medicine electronic textbooks (January 2015–August 2017) were identified on the websites of German, Austrian, and Swiss publishers. Six textbooks were excluded (irrelevant content; compilation of peer-reviewed articles). Content on HES (‘Kolloid’, ‘Hydroxyäthylstärke’, ‘Hydroxyethylstärke’, ‘HES’, ‘HAES’) and COI (‘Interessenkonflikt‘) was electronically searched; subject lists were manually searched. Recommendations on HES were analyzed in the context of indications/warnings/international guidelines. Potential COI for authors of controversial recommendations were searched on PubMed/EMBASE (January 2016–May 2018). ResultsCOI statements were absent in 38/39 textbooks (present for 1/553 authors; 0.2 %). Twelve textbooks did not discuss HES for volume resuscitation. HES was recommended in 13 textbooks; many recommendations were controversial (10/39 textbooks, 26 %; 25/553 authors, 5 %). Journal COI statements were available for 18/25 authors; 7 authors had financial/other COI, including 4/18 (22 %) with ties to HES manufacturers. ConclusionsRecommendations on volume resuscitation with HES are highly controversial in German-language electronic textbooks; about one-quarter of relevant textbooks are inconsistent with regulatory authority or international guideline criteria. Undisclosed potential COI of textbook authors making controversial recommendations of HES were frequent, linking roughly one in five authors to the HES-producing industry. Against this background, COI statements must become part of standard textbook publication ethics.

Is partial behaviour a plausible explanation for the unavailability of the ICMJE disclosure form of an author in a BMJ journal?

This case study about the ethical behaviour in the field of scholarly publishing documents an exception on the rule for research articles in the medical journal BMJ Open that ICMJE disclosure forms of authors must be made available on request. The ICMJE, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, has developed these forms for the disclosure of conflicts of interest for authors of medical publications. The case refers to the form of the corresponding author of an article in BMJ Open on retraction notices (Moylan and Kowalczuk, 2016). The corresponding author is a member of the council of COPE, the Committee on Publication Ethics. I will argue that the unavailability of the form relates to personal conflicts of interest with the corresponding author about my efforts to retract a fatally flawed study on the breeding biology of the Basra Reed Warbler Acrocephalus griseldis . I describe my attempts to get the form and I will argue that its unavailability can be attributed to partial behaviour by BMJ, the publisher of BMJ Open . This study complements other sources reporting ethical issues at COPE.

Conflict of interest reporting in biomedical journals published in China

ABSTRACTThis study aimed to investigate the current status and policy of Conflict of interest (COI) reporting in biomedical journals in China. Thirty Chinese-language medical journals and 37 English-language biomedical journals indexed by Journal Citation Reports categories were included into this study. These 67 journals were all published in China. All articles published in the most recent two issues were checked for identifying the disclosure statement in the text or not. Twenty-one of 30 (70%) Chinese-language journals required a disclosure of author’s potential COI. No journals require editors or referees to disclose the conflicts of interest to the readers. In total, 1,212 publications in Chinese-language were evaluated. Only two journals reported COI in their publications. For the 37 English-language journals, 32 (86.5%) required author’s potential COI disclosure, and four of them required only research articles or original articles to disclose COI. A total of 1,170 publications were evaluated. Among them, 50% editorials, 79.3% review articles, and 73.6% original articles reported presence or absence of COI. In our studied journals, the percentage of the policies requiring author COI disclosure is still low. Biomedical journals published in China should enforce COI disclosure policies to authors, editors, and referees.

Is investigator background related to outcome in head to head trials of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for adult depression? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BackgroundThe influence of factors related to the background of investigators conducting trials comparing psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy has remained largely unstudied. Specializations emphasizing biological determinants of mental disorders, like psychiatry, might favor pharmacotherapy, while others stressing psychosocial factors, like psychology, could promote psychotherapy. Yet financial conflict of interest (COI) could be a confounding factor as authors with a medical specialization might receive more sponsoring from the pharmaceutical industry.MethodWe conducted a meta-analysis with subgroup and meta-regression analysis examining whether the specialization and affiliation of trial authors were associated to outcomes in the direct comparison of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for the acute treatment of depression. Meta-regression analysis also included trial risk of bias and author conflict of interest in relationship to the pharmaceutical industry.ResultsWe included 45 trials. In half, the first author was psychologist. The last author was psychiatrist/MD in half of the trials, and a psychologist or statistician/other technical in the rest. Most lead authors had medical affiliations. Subgroup analysis indicated that studies with last authors statisticians favored pharmacotherapy. Univariate analysis showed a negative relationship between the presence of statisticians and outcomes favoring psychotherapy. Multivariate analysis showed that trials including authors with financial COI reported findings more favorable to pharmacotherapy.DiscussionWe report the first detailed overview of the background of authors conducting head to head trials for depression. Trials co-authored by statisticians appear to subtly favor pharmacotherapy. Receiving funding from the industry is more closely related to finding better outcomes for the industry’s elective treatment than are factors related to authors’ background.LimitationsFor a minority of authors we could not retrieve background information. The number of trials was insufficient to evidence subtler effects.

In ... and out: open access publishing in scientific journals.

Open access (OA) journals are a growing phenomenon largely of the past decade wherein readers can access the content of scientific journals without paying for a subscription. The costs are borne by authors (or their institutions) who pay a fee to be published, thus allowing readers to access, search, print, and cite the journals without cost. Although the OA model, in and of itself, need not diminish scientific rigor, selectivity, or peer review, the "author pays" model creates an inherent conflict of interest: it operates with the incentive on the part of the journal to publish more and reject less. This is coupled with cost containment measures that affect the journals' ability to engage experienced editors and professional staff to scrutinize data, data analyses, and author conflicts of interest. While some OA journals appear to be comparable to their print competitors, others are "predatory" and have no legitimacy at all. Two recent "scams"--one recently published in Science--highlight the urgency of addressing the issues raised by OA publication so that OA does not lose its credibility just as it begins to gather substantial momentum. High-quality journals develop their reputations over time, and OA outlets will be no exception. For this to occur, however, the OA audience will need to be satisfied that OA can deliver high-quality publications utilizing rigorous peer review, editing, and conflict of interest scrutiny. Academic tenure and promotion committees that review scholarly credentials are understandably skeptical of publications in unrecognized journals, and the large number of new OA outlets contributes to this urgency from their perspective as well.

Current Levels of Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Medical Publications from Korea

Medical research should be fully transparent. The aims of this study were to determine the prevalence of author-related conflict of interest (COI) policies and evaluate the actual state of COI disclosure in Korean medical journals. To determine the prevalence of author-related COI policies, we examined the 198 medical journals listed in the KoreaMed database. To investigate the actual state of COI disclosures in published papers, we analyzed the publications in a representative medical journal, the Journal of the Korean Medical Science, from the perspective of the relevance of the ethics of COI disclosure. A total of 164 (82.8%) journals required an author's statement of COI as a criterion for publication. Of these 164, most of them focused on financial COI, with 101 (61.6%) presenting the information related to COI disclosures as a separate paragraph with a clear title. We identified 114 articles published by the Journal of the Korean Medical Science over a seven-year period, from January, 2006 to December, 2012. Of these, 65 papers (57%) included an author's statement of COI. We found that the policies of Korean medical journals regarding the disclosure of author COIs are still behind the internationally suggested level.