Author Conflicts Research Articles

Psilocybin for clinical indications: A scoping review.

Psychedelic drugs have been of interest in medicine since the early 1950s. There has recently been a resurgence of interest in psychedelics. The objective of this study is to determine the extent of the available literature on psilocybin for medical indications including the designs used, study characteristics, indications studied, doses, and authors' conclusions. We identify areas for further study where there are research gaps. We conducted a systematic scoping review of clinical indications for psilocybin, encompassing psychiatric and medical conditions. We systematically searched Medline and Embase using keywords related to psilocybin. We reviewed titles and texts in duplicate using Covidence software. We extracted data individually in duplicate using Covidence software and a senior reviewer resolved all author conflicts. We analyzed data descriptively. We included 193 published and 80 ongoing studies. Thirty-seven percent of included studies were systematic reviews. Only 12% of included studies were randomized controlled trials. The median number of participants was 22 with a median of 18 participants who had taken psilocybin. Thirty-eight percent of studies reported at least one potential conflict of interest. The most common indication was depression (28%). Also commonly studied were substance use (14%), mental health in life-threatening illness (9%), headaches (6%), depression and anxiety (6%), obsessive-compulsive disorder (3%), and anxiety disorders (3%). Most studies involving the administration of psilocybin have small sample sizes and the most common focus has been psychiatric disorders. There is a need for high-quality randomized trials on psilocybin and to expand consideration to other promising indications, such as chronic pain.

Analysis of the ethical issues in authorship of collaborative research. Observations inspired by the historical case study of Gerard L. Blaes' (Blasius) claim to sole authorship of 'Anatome medullae spinalis'.

This paper discusses the historical context of collaborative research and authorship disputes, exemplified by the complex relationship between Dutch anatomist and physician Gerard L. Blaes and his East-Central European mentee, Daniel Gödtke, during the study of medulla spinalis. The study employs historical analysis to unravel the dynamics of scholarly collaboration, emphasizing the significance of mentorship in scientific progress and the communal nature of knowledge exchange. This historical analysis is based on primary sources and historical records. It underscores Blaes's strategy to circumvent public confrontations regarding the authorship of the seminal work 'Anatome medullae spinalis, et nervorum inde provenientium' (1666). As a teacher, he facilitated his student's participation in a public disputation to avert public authorship conflicts over the book. This ultimately led to the publication of two distinct versions of 'Anatome medullae spinalis.' The first one was co-authored by the mentor and his mentee, while the latter was solely attributed to the mentor. This historical narrative raises essential questions about attributing individual contributions in medical sciences, echoing concerns still pertinent in contemporary academia. Additionally, it makes visible the power dynamics inherent in faculty-students relationships and the potential repercussions of authorship disputes on scholars' reputations. By drawing parallels between historical and modern authorship dilemmas, this study contributes to ongoing discussions on equitable authorship in scientific research and publishing. It not only highlights a historical precedent for the complex dynamics of mentor-mentee collaborations and authorship disputes but also illuminates how these practices continue to influence contemporary academic and publishing customs.

Authorship conflicts in academia: an international cross-discipline survey

Collaboration among scholars has emerged as a significant characteristic of contemporary science. As a result, the number of authors listed in publications continues to rise steadily. Unfortunately, determining the authors to be included in the byline and their respective order entails multiple difficulties which often lead to conflicts. Despite the large volume of literature about conflicts in academia, it remains unclear how exactly these are distributed over the main socio-demographic properties, as well as the different types of interactions academics experience. To address this gap, we conducted an international and cross-disciplinary survey answered by 752 academics from 41 fields of research and 93 countries that statistically well-represent the overall academic workforce. Our findings are concerning and suggest that conflicts over authorship credit arise very early in one’s academic career, even at the level of Master and Ph.D., and become increasingly common over time.

Does haste make waste? Prevalence and types of errors reported after publication of studies of COVID-19 therapeutics

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic spurred publication of a rapid proliferation of studies on potential therapeutic agents. While important for the advancement of clinical care, pressure to collect, analyze, and report data in an expedited manner could potentially increase the rate of important errors, some of which would be captured in published errata. We hypothesized that COVID-19 therapeutic studies published in the early years of the pandemic would be associated with a high rate of published errata and that, within these errata, there would be a high prevalence of serious errors.MethodsWe performed a review of published errata associated with empirical studies of COVID-19 treatments. Errata were identified via a MEDLINE and Embase search spanning January 2020 through September 2022. Errors located within each published erratum were characterized by location within publication, error type, and error seriousness.ResultsOf 47 studies on COVID-19 treatments with published errata, 18 met inclusion criteria. Median time from publication of the original article to publication of the associated erratum was 76 days (range, 12–511 days). A majority of errata addressed issues with author attribution or conflict of interest disclosures (39.5%) or numerical results (25.6%). Only one erratum contained a serious error: a typographical error which could have misled readers into believing that the treatment in question had serious adverse effects when in fact it did not.ConclusionsDespite accelerated publication times, we found among studies of COVID-19 treatments the majority of errata (17/18) reported minor errors that did not lead to misinterpretation of the study results. Retractions, an indicator of scientific misdirection even more concerning than errata, were beyond the scope of this review.

A systematic review of retractions in biomedical research publications: reasons for retractions and their citations in Indian affiliations

Retractions of peer-reviewed biomedical journal articles with Indian authorship have been on the rise for many years. Our study aimed to investigate the reason behind these retractions, namely plagiarism, falsification, fabrication, duplicate publication, author conflicts, ethical issues, fake peer-reviews, and data-related issues, besides providing year-wise trends regarding retraction, authorship, impact factor, and citations. We retrieved retracted publications with Indian affiliations indexed in MEDLINE between 1 January 1990 to 31 December 2021. During this period a total of 619 papers from 372 different journals with median values (interquartile range) pertaining to impact factor [3.2 (1.5, 5.2)], retraction time [24 (10, 51)] months, pre-retraction citations [4 (1, 12)], and post-retraction citations [4 (2, 12)] were retracted. While retractions still account for a small fraction of all publications (0.1%), the overall rate of retractions, that is, the number of retractions relative to the number of newly published journal articles in a given year, has been increasing. The reasons for retractions included plagiarism (27%), falsification and fabrication (26%), duplicate publication (21%), erroneous data (12%), authorship issues (4%), fake-peer reviews (3%), and ethical and funding issues (2%). We have analysed these reasons separately and compared them with each other. Besides a spurt in retraction due to plagiarism, instances of falsification have been escalating over the past decade. Half of the papers retracted on grounds of falsification were published by repeat offender authors in high-impact journals. Furthermore, 82% of retracted papers continued to accumulate citations even after the release of the journal retraction notices. The increase in retractions raises concerns over research quality as well as the wastage of scientific resources, which is especially pressing considering the present environment of scarce funding. The problem of retractions due to reasons such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, authorship issues, and, ethical issues as well as post-retraction citations can be mitigated by educating and raising awareness on publication ethics and responsible research conduct of researchers and journal publishers. Retractions due to fabrication, falsification, and fake peer reviews are more challenging to difficult to address and require further research for the identification of effective solutions.

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.

Use of behavioural change taxonomies in systematic reviews and meta-analyses regarding obesity management.

We investigated the prevalence of behavioural change taxonomies in systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to obesity management. In addition, we analysed the funding sources, author conflicts of interest statements, risk of bias, and favorability of the results in such studies to determine if there was a relationship between methodological quality and taxonomy use. We searched several databases including MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, Cochrane EDSR, Pubmed and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses regarding the behavioural treatment of obesity. Screening and data extraction was performed in a masked, duplicate fashion. We performed statistical analyses to determine any significant association between use of taxonomy and study characteristics. Fifteen (of 186; 8.06%) systematic reviews used a taxonomy-nine used the BCTTv1, three used OXFAB, two used the CALO-RE and one used "Taxonomy of choice architecture techniques." Most interventions that referenced a taxonomy were self-mediated (6/60, 10%). Behavioural change taxonomies were mentioned in 10 (of 87, 11.49%) studies with a public funding source. Of the studies with favourable results, 14 studies (of 181, 7.73%) referred to a taxonomy. We found no statistically significant relationships between use of taxonomy and study characteristics. We found that systematic reviews regarding the management of obesity rarely mention a behavioural change taxonomy. Given the global burden of obesity, it is crucial that behavioural change techniques are reproducible and translatable. We recommend that researchers look further into how taxonomies affect the quality and reproducibility of behavioural interventions in an effort to improve patient outcomes.

Reporting conflicts of interest in randomised trials of patient blood management interventions in patients requiring major surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectiveThis study aimed to systematically review the effects of declared and undeclared conflicts of interest on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patient blood management (PBM) interventions.DesignWe performed a secondary analysis...

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.

Financial Conflicts of Interest in Propensity Score-Matched Studies Evaluating Biologics and Biosimilars for Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BackgroundPropensity score matching (PSM), a statistical technique that estimates a treatment effect by accounting for predictor covariates, has been used to evaluate biologics for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Financial conflicts of interest are prevalent in the marketing of biologic medications. It is unclear whether this burden of conflicts is present among authors of PSM studies comparing IBD biologics and biosimilars.ObjectiveThis study was aimed to determine the prevalence of financial conflicts of interest among authors of PSM studies evaluating IBD biologics and biosimilars.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search for PSM studies comparing biologics and biosimilars in IBD treatment. We identified 21 eligible studies. Two independent authors extracted self-declared conflicts from the disclosures section. Each participating author was searched on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments to identify payment amounts and undisclosed conflicts. Primary outcome was the prevalence of author conflicts. Secondary analyses assessed for an association between conflict prevalence and reporting of positive outcomes.ResultsAmong 283 authors, conflicts were present among 41.0% (116 of 283). Twenty-three per cent (27 of 116) of author conflicts involved undisclosed payments. Studies with positive outcomes were significantly more likely to include conflicted authors than neutral studies (relative risk = 2.34, 95% confidence interval: 1.71 to 3.21, P < 0.001).ConclusionsOverall, we found a high burden of undisclosed conflicts among authors of PSM studies comparing IBD biologics and biosimilars. Given the importance of PSM studies as a means for biologic comparison and the potential for undue industry influence from these payments, authors should ensure greater transparency with reporting of industry relationships.

How do researchers perceive research misbehaviors? A case study of Indian researchers

ABSTRACT Despite ample evidence of increasing research misconduct in India, little attention has been paid to understanding researchers’ perception of research integrity and research misconduct among young Indian researchers. Interviews among 30 research scholars were conducted at Pondicherry University in India to understand their experience and perception of research misconduct. The top three influencing factors for scientific misconduct, according to the participants, were unavailability of adequate funds (35%), pressure from research supervisors (29%), and desperation to publish articles (25%). The participants had witnessed research misconduct in different forms i.e., data fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. However, plagiarism was the most often cited cause of misbehavior in our interviews. Majority of participants have witnessed or personally encountered multiple instances where authorship conflicts occurred. The other questionable research practices highlighted in the study were improper citations, authorship disputes like gift and ghost authorships, misrepresentation of statistical data, failure to publish negative results. In an increasingly diverse and changing research environment, our research calls for practical research guidelines based on honesty, openness, and accountability that can help articulate and strengthen scientists’ core values. More importantly, scientific misconduct can only be prevented by using a multifaceted strategy that includes identifying instances of scientific misconduct and implementing suitable deterrents and treatments that could change the behavior associated with such misconduct.

Policies of biomedical preprint servers on conflicts of interest, authorship, and research integrity lacked important details

ObjectivesTo assess the policies of biomedical preprint servers on the reporting of funding, conflict of interest (COI), author contributions, and research integrity. Study Design and SettingWe generated a list of potentially eligible preprint servers then judged their eligibility in duplicate and independently. Between July and September 2021, we extracted information from the websites of these servers in duplicate and independently and through a simulated submission. ResultsWe included 37 preprint servers. A variable percentage of these servers had policies for reporting of funding (43%), disclosure of COI (78%), specification of authors’ contributions (54%), and research integrity (76%). While 97% of the COI policies required authors to disclose their own interests, only 7% addressed interests related to family members. About a third of authors’ contribution policies (30%) did not specify the types of contributions to report. While a majority of research integrity polices described screening checks for plagiarism (71%), a minority described screening checks for fabrication (39%), falsification (36%), and image manipulation (32%). ConclusionLess than half of biomedical preprint servers have policies on reporting on funding. Policies related to COI disclosure, reporting of author contributions, and research integrity lack important details.

Author and Owner Intersection in Sound Recordings in The Copyright Act of India

The present work focuses on the intersection of author and owner concerning sound recordings. The interpretation of copyright law on the author and owner intersection by the Court's are rather varied. It may be because the restricted issues at its hand lead the courts. More particularly, interpretation of provisos (b) and (c) of Section 17 of The Copyright Act, 1957 leads to differing interpretations by the Courts. The present analysis is made by studying three recent judgments to understand the author and owner conflicts of sound recordings.

Clear, transparent, and timely communication for fair authorship decisions: a practical guide

Abstract. Authorship conflicts are a common occurrence in academic publishing, and they can have serious implications for the careers and well-being of the involved researchers as well as the collective success of research organizations. In addition to not inviting relevant contributors to co-author a paper, the order of authors as well as honorary, gift, and ghost authors are all widely recognized problems related to authorship. Unfair authorship practices disproportionately affect those lower in the power hierarchies – early career researchers, women, researchers from the Global South, and other minoritized groups. Here we propose an approach to preparing author lists based on clear, transparent, and timely communication. This approach aims to minimize the potential for late-stage authorship conflicts during manuscript preparation by facilitating timely and transparent decisions on potential co-authors and their responsibilities. Furthermore, our approach can help avoid imbalances between contributions and credits in published papers by recording planned and executed responsibilities. We present authorship guidelines which also include a novel authorship form along with the documentation of the formulation process for a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary center with more than 250 researchers. Other research groups, departments, and centers can use or build on this template to design their own authorship guidelines as a practical way to promote fair authorship practices.

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.

Examining the sources of evidence in e-cigarette policy recommendations: A citation network analysis of international public health recommendations.

BackgroundPublic health policies and recommendations aim to be informed by the best available evidence. Evidence underpinning e-cigarettes policy recommendations has been necessarily limited due to the novelty of the technology and the lack of long-term epidemiological studies and trials. Some public health bodies have actively encouraged e-cigarette use whilst others have raised concerns over introducing new health risks and renormalising tobacco smoking. Using citation network analysis we investigated the author conflicts of interest and study funding statements within sources of evidence used by public health bodies when making recommendations about e-cigarette policy.MethodsWe conducted citation network analysis of public health recommendation documents across four purposively selected diverse jurisdictions: WHO, UK, Australia, and USA. We extracted all citations from 15 public health recommendation documents, with more detailed data collected for influential citations (used in 3+ recommendation documents). We analysed the relationships between the sources of evidence used across jurisdictions using block modelling to determine if similar groups of documents were used across different jurisdictions. We assessed the frequency and nature of conflicts of interest.Results1700 unique citations were included across the 15 public health recommendation documents, with zero to 923 citations per document (median = 63, IQR = 7.5–132). The evidence base underpinning public health recommendations did not systematically differ across jurisdictions. Of the 1700 citations included, the majority were journal articles (n = 1179). Across 1081 journal articles published between 1998–2018, 200 declared a conflict of interest, 288 contained no mention of conflicts of interest, and 593 declared none. Conflicts of interest were reported with tobacco (3%; n = 37 journal articles of 1081), e-cigarette (7%; n = 72), and pharmaceutical companies (12%; n = 127), with such conflicts present even in the most recent years. There were 53 influential citations, the most common study type was basic science research without human subjects (e.g. examination of aerosols and e-liquids) (n = 18) followed by systematic review (n = 10); with randomised control trial being least common (n = 4). Network analysis identified clusters of highly-cited articles with a higher prevalence of conflicts of interest.ConclusionPublic health bodies across different jurisdictions drew upon similar sources of evidence, despite articulating different policy approaches to e-cigarettes. The evidence drawn upon, including the most influential evidence, contained substantial conflicts of interest (including relationships with e-cigarette and tobacco industries). Processes to explicitly manage conflicts of interest arising from the underlying evidence base may be required when developing public health recommendations.

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.

Finding my online voice.

It was a beautiful August day, and I was on a socially distanced hike with friends along the Appalachian Trail. But instead of enjoying the scenery, I was distracted by my phone. It kept buzzing in my pocket as hundreds of Twitter notifications flooded in. I had been on Twitter for about a year, mainly tweeting about science. I enjoyed it, but none of my tweets ever got much traction—until that day. I was excited—and nervous. Was I ready to be Twitter famous? > “I am not an expert on academic life, but … sharing my experiences is still useful and rewarding.” I had spent much of the previous day wrestling with data files prepared by a junior co-worker, first using the version they named “final” only to find that the actual values I needed were in a file named “final2.” After I sorted it out, I sent a quick—hopefully polite and constructive—email saying that we needed to do a better job naming our shared files. Late that night, I was awoken by a notification on my phone: My colleague had emailed with an apology and assurance that they would do better in the future. Unable to go back to sleep, I decided to tweet a brief comment about the importance of properly naming research files, hoping that some of my few dozen followers would benefit. To my astonishment, it was retweeted by a high-profile academic account, and it had blown up by morning. Before that point, my tweets had been limited to sharing research results, without adding any personal perspective. I was hesitant to share my thoughts or experiences, thinking no one would care—or, worse, that colleagues and potential future employers might misinterpret them. After all, who was I to offer advice? I'm just a Ph.D. student doing my best; I didn't know whether I was doing anything right myself! But seeing people from across academia retweeting me and agreeing with my point shifted my mindset. Maybe I do have something to offer. Since then, I have been regularly tweeting about my experiences as a Ph.D. student, including navigating authorship conflicts, maintaining work-life balance, mentoring undergraduate students, giving presentations, writing, and more. Some tweets inspire a lot of responses, others fewer. Regardless, I've found that I enjoy offering my perspective. I am not an expert on academic life, but I've learned that I don't need to pretend to be. Sharing my experiences is still useful and rewarding. I recently posted about the personal statement component of graduate school applications. I recalled struggling with this when I first applied to Ph.D. programs, as an international student with no scientist family members to advise me. I searched the internet for advice and crafted my application as well as I could, but my statement mostly ticked off items from my CV. I didn't get into most of the places where I applied. One school invited me to a master's program, though, and I enrolled. When I applied for Ph.D. programs again a few years later, my experience in academia and my mentor's advice led me to take a different approach to the personal statement. I focused on the ideas I wished to pursue, and wrote about how my background and the school I was applying to were a good fit. This time, most programs offered me a spot. I thought others might benefit from the insight I had gained, so I posted a series of tweets. Many students reached out, thanking me and asking follow-up questions. One first-generation student in Nigeria—someone I would never have connected with were I not active on Twitter—asked me whether I had time to provide feedback about their statement, which I was honored to do. The student also mentioned how they benefited from my posts and the discussions they spurred, which reinforced my motivation to keep at it. Although I sometimes feel uncomfortable and vulnerable sharing my experiences on a massive global platform, I've found that it is well worth it. I've learned that we are all stronger if we authentically share and connect with one another.