Self-reported Conflicts Of Interest Research Articles

Accuracy of Conflicts in Interest in General Surgical Journals.

To evaluate the accuracy of self-reported conflicts of interest (COIs) for articles published in prominent minimally invasive and general surgical journals. Accurate reporting of industry relationships and COIs is crucial for unbiased assessment of a particular study. Despite the enactment of COI laws, such as the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010, prior work suggests that 40-70% of self-reported COIs have discrepancies. We utilized three public databases -- Open Payments (USA), Disclosure UK, and Disclosure Australia -- to assess the accuracy of COI disclosures among authors of 918 published articles from these respective countries. Seven journals were utilized to review the COIs for authors of manuscripts published in 2022 - JAMA Surgery, Annals of Surgery, British Journal of Surgery (BJS), Journal of American College of Surgeons (JACS), Surgical Endoscopy, Obesity Surgery, and Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases (SOARD). Among the analyzed 6206 authors, 5675 belonged to countries of interest: USA (4282), UK (718), and Australia (213). Of these, 774 authors (12.5%) self-reported a conflict of interest in their papers. Overall, only 4055 researchers (69.1%) reported COIs accurately. Authors from the US had the lowest accuracy of reporting COI at 69% as opposed to UK (93%) and Australia (96%). Inaccurate COI reporting was most common in corresponding/senior authors (39%) and least common amongst first authors (18%). Most payments in excess of $50,000 made to authors by an industry sponsor were not disclosed appropriately. Our study shows that inaccuracy of self-reported COIs in general surgery journals remains high at 31%. While our findings should encourage authors to overreport any possible COI, journals should consider verifying the authors' COI to facilitate more accurate reporting.

A cross-sectional examination of conflict-of-interest disclosures of physician-authors publishing in high-impact US medical journals

ObjectiveTo assess the accuracy of self-reported financial conflict-of-interest (COI) disclosures in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) within the requisite...

Association of Financial Conflicts of Interest With Academic Productivity Among Junior Faculty in Hematology and Oncology

Financial conflicts of interest (COIs) represent a common and complex issue in hematology and oncology. However, little is known about the timing of when COIs begin to develop during a career trajectory. We evaluated self-reported COIs for junior faculty members at top cancer centers to determine how these financial relationships correlated with measures of academic career productivity. We analyzed data from 230 assistant professors at 10 academic cancer centers. Financial COIs were identified from the CMS Open Payments (Sunshine Act dollars) database. Self-reported COIs were obtained from American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and American Society of Hematology (ASH) disclosures, and from disclosures in recent publications. Number of publications and h-index (defined as the largest number of publications [h] such that h publications each have at least h citations) were used as measures of academic productivity. Scatter plots and Spearman correlation coefficients were used to assess the relationship between COIs or Sunshine Act dollars with number of publications and h-index. Linear regression modeling was used to analyze the relationships between COIs or Sunshine Act dollars with number of publications and h-index, adjusting for years of experience since completing fellowship (YSF). A total of 46% of junior faculty had at least 1 COI. Number of COIs reported to ASCO/ASH was positively correlated with total Sunshine Act dollars (Spearman correlation, 0.53; P <.01). The number of COIs and the number of Sunshine Act dollars increased with years in practice (Spearman correlation, 0.38 and 0.25, respectively; P <.01 for both). COIs and Sunshine Act dollars correlated with h-index (Spearman correlation, 0.41 and 0.37, respectively; both P <.01). After adjusting for YSF, linear regression demonstrated that log-transformed h-index and number of publications were associated with Sunshine Act dollars (both P <.01) and COIs (ASCO/ASH) (both P = .01). Financial COIs increased with number of YSF. Measures of academic productivity were positively correlated with COIs (ASCO/ASH) and Sunshine Act dollars. These data suggest that the cultivation of industry relationships is associated with the early academic productivity of junior faculty.

Let's be honest, the perception is real

Let's be honest, the perception is real

Assessment of self-reported financial conflicts of interest in vascular surgery studies

Objective/BackgroundWith increased collaboration between surgeons and industry, there has been a push towards improving transparency of conflicts of interest (COIs). This study aims to determine the accuracy of reporting of COIs among studies in major vascular surgery journals. MethodsA literature search identified all comparative studies published from January 2018 through December 2018 from three major United States vascular surgery journals (Journal of Vascular Surgery, Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, and Annals of Vascular Surgery). Industry payments were collected using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. COI discrepancies were identified by comparing author declaration statements with payments found for the year of publication and year prior. ResultsA total of 239 studies (1642 authors) were identified. Two hundred twenty-one studies (92%) and 669 authors (63%) received undisclosed payments when utilizing a cut-off payment amount of $250. In 2018, 10,778 payments (totaling $22,174,578) were made by 145 companies. Food and beverage payments were the most commonly reported transaction (42%), but accounted for only 3% of total reported monetary values. Authors who accurately disclosed payments received significantly higher median general payments compared with authors who did not accurately disclose payments ($56,581 [interquartile range, $2441-$100,551] vs $2361 [interquartile range, $525-$9,699]; P < .001). When stratifying by dollar-amount discrepancy, the proportions of authors receiving undisclosed payments decreased with increasing payment thresholds. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that first and senior authors were both significantly more likely to have undisclosed payments (odds ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-3.6 and odds ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-5.2, respectively). ConclusionsThere is a significant discordance between self-reported COI in vascular surgery studies compared with payments received in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. This study highlights the need for increased efforts to both improve definitions of what constitutes a relevant COI and encourage a standardized reporting process for vascular surgery studies.

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.

Association of financial conflicts of interest with academic success among junior faculty in hematology and oncology.

2080 Background: Financial conflict of interest (COI) represents a complex issue in hematology and oncology. Little is known about when COIs develop during a career and if these correlate with early career success. We evaluated self-reported COIs for junior faculty members at 10 academic cancer centers and examined if these financial relationships with industry correlated with measures of academic career success. Methods: The study evaluated 229 assistant professors from the top 10 cancer centers based on the 2018 US News Cancer rankings. Faculty characteristics were determined from hospital websites including the number of years since completing fellowship. Data regarding National Institute of Health (NIH) funding were obtained. Industry funds (Sunshine Act funds; SAF) were identified from the Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments database from 2013-2017. Self-reported COIs were obtained from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) or American Society of Hematology (ASH) disclosures databases, and through review of disclosures from recent publications. Measures of academic success included h-index and number of publications. We assessed the influence of number of COIs and SAF received on measures of academic success. Results: Of the 229 included faculty, 45% were female, 39% graduated fellowship in 2015 or later, 35% were double-boarded, 40% had dual degrees and 15% received NIH funding. Approximately 46% of faculty had at least 1 COI. COIs (ASCO/ASH) were positively correlated with COIs self-reported in publications and total SAF (Spearman correlations 0.57 and 0.54, both P &lt; 0.01). The development of COIs and the number of SAF increased with years in practice (Spearman correlations 0.37 and 0.28, both P &lt; 0.01). COIs and SAF correlated with h-index (Spearman correlation 0.40 and 0.41, both P &lt; 0.01). After adjusting for years since fellowship, linear regression demonstrated that log-transformed h-index and number of publications were associated with SAF (P &lt; 0.01) and COIs (ASCO/ASH) (P = 0.01). Conclusions: Financial COIs were present in nearly half of the faculty and increased with more time since completing fellowship. Measures of academic success were positively correlated with COIs (ASCO/ASH) and SAF. These data suggest that cultivating industry relationships may aid faculty in establishing early academic success.

Scope and Prevalence of Conflicts of Interest Among Highly Cited Peripheral Artery Disease Research Studies

Conflicts of interest (COI) potentially influence interpretation of study results for both authors and journal readers. Scientific journals often require author disclosure of relevant conflicts, but this is usually by self-report and seldom includes detailed quantification of reimbursement. The purpose of this analysis was to characterize COI among highly cited research studies related to peripheral artery disease (PAD) in terms of prevalence, quantity of reimbursement, and associations with manuscript characteristics. Highly cited PAD publications from 2012 to 2017 were identified through a Web of Science search using “peripheral artery disease.” Results were then sorted by number of times cited from highest to lowest. Review articles and non-English language publications were excluded. The top 100 most-cited publications were then abstracted for disclosed COI by author. Articles were characterized as basic science or clinical, and clinical publications were subcategorized as observational, medical interventions, or procedural interventions. Disclosures by US authors were queried using the ProPublica Dollars for Docs search tool (linked to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments data) based on provider name, specialty, and geographic location. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and categorical tests, including the χ2 test. Included publications were cited a mean of 124 ± 200.5 times and had a total of 1137 named authors. A mean of 1.6 ± 4.8 disclosed COI per author were identified. The prevalence of disclosed COI was significantly higher for clinical versus basic science studies (32.1% vs 4.2%; P < .0001). Among the top 10 articles by highest mean number of disclosures per author, the median open payment amount among authors reporting COI was $121,500 (range, $22-$2,630,000), and a total of $1,584,727 in nondisclosed open payments were identified from authors reporting no COI (median, $24,573; range, $12-$457,000). Disclosed COI sorted by journal are shown in the Table. Significant COI were identified among highly cited PAD studies, although the majority of authors reported none. Disclosed COI are significantly more prevalent among clinical versus basic science studies. Authors may have substantial nondisclosed compensation from industry that may be relevant to study results and interpretation. These results suggest that author self-reported COI may be conservatively biased. Readers should consider potential COI, including quantity of author compensation, when interpreting study results.TableMean number of disclosed conflicts of interest (COI) per author among highly cited peripheral artery disease (PAD) studies sorted by journalaJournalJournal Impact Factor (JCR 2017)Total no. of authorsMean COI per authorStandard deviationRangeStroke6.239109.75.50-17New England Journal of Medicine79.258805.990-41Journal of the American College of Cardiology16.8341303.57.10-44American Journal of Medicine5.117234.66.90-21Journal of Endovascular Therapy2.732262.23.50-18Arteriosclerosis Thrombosis and Vascular Biology6.086153.24.50-14JACC Cardiovascular Interventions9.88192.84.40-14Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology19.313102.53.40-11European Heart Journal23.425462.46.20-30JACC-Cardiovascular Interventions9.881751.94.40-32Circulation18.881311.84.70-37Leukemia10.023161.630-11Annals of Neurology10.244241.14.20-20Journal of the American Medical Association10.244490.82.10-9Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions2.60260.50.80-2Journal of the American Society of Nephrology8.655180.51.50-5Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery4.8860.51.20-3Hypertension6.823180.41.40-6Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery1.19550.40.50-1Lancet53.254480.31.60-11Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy2.77190.20.40-1Journal of Vascular Surgery3.294140.20.60-2Pharmacological Research4.897110.20.40-1Journal of the American Heart Association4.45400.10.20-1aJournals with highly cited studies but zero COI were excluded. Open table in a new tab

Author Disclosures in Plastic Surgery Journals Compared With Information Reported in the Open Payments Database: How Open Are We?

Relationships between companies in the biomedical industry and authors submitting scientific articles for publication has been an issue of some concern for many years. It has been frequently demonstrated that these financial relationships can influence the manner in which research findings are presented. The National Physician Payment Transparency Program, also known as the Open Payment Program or the Sunshine Act, was legislated to expose potential conflicts of interest (COIs). Likewise, most peer-reviewed journals require disclosure of any potential COIs. The purpose of this paper was to compare the information published in the Open Payment Database to authors' self-disclosed COIs in their published articles. An analysis was performed by one of the authors (P.S.B.) of all articles published in Aesthetic Surgery Journal (ASJ) and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) from August 2013 through December 2016. Financial disclosures reported in these articles were compared with the physician payment information provided by the biomedical industry and published in the Open Payments Database in 2013 and 2018. A total of 1346 articles were included in the study, from which 320 authors and 899 total authorships were eligible for analysis. Out of 782 authorships with noted discrepancies, 96% were related to potential COIs found in the Open Payments database but not disclosed in the journal publication. Our data suggest major discordance between authors' self-reported COIs in the plastic surgery literature and industry payments published in the Open Payments database.

Association of conflicts of interest with the results and conclusions of goal-directed hemodynamic therapy research: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

The association between conflicts of interest (COI) and study results or article conclusions in goal-directed hemodynamic therapy (GDHT) research is unknown. Randomized controlled trials comparing GDHT with usual care were identified. COI were classified as industry sponsorship, author conflict, device loaner, none, or not reported. The association between COI and study results (complications and mortality) was assessed using both stratified meta-analysis and mixed effects meta-regression. The association between COI and an article's conclusion (graded as GDHT-favorable, neutral, or unfavorable) was investigated using logistic regression. Of the 82 eligible articles, 43 (53%) had self-reported COI, and 50 (61%) favored GDHT. GDHT significantly reduced complications on the basis of the meta-analysis of studies with any type of COI, studies declaring no COI, industry-sponsored studies, and studies with author conflict but not on studies with a device loaner. However, no significant relationship between COI and the relative risk (GDHT vs. usual care) of developing complications was found on the basis of meta-regression (p = 0.25). No significant effect of GDHT was found on mortality. COI had a significant overall effect (p = 0.016) on the odds of having a GDHT-favorable vs. neutral conclusion based on 81 studies. Eighty-four percent of the industry-sponsored studies had a GDHT-favorable conclusion, while only 27% of the studies with a device loaner had the same conclusion grade. The available evidence does not suggest a close relationship between COI and study results in GDHT research. However, a potential association may exist between COI and an article's conclusion in GDHT research.

The relationship of study and authorship characteristics on trial sponsorship and self-reported conflicts of interest among neuro-oncology clinical trials.

To examine the association between trial sponsorship sources, self-reported conflicts of interest (COI), and study and author characteristics in central nervous system (CNS) oncology clinical trials (CT). MEDLINE search was performed for original CT on "Central Nervous System Neoplasms"[Mesh]. The investigators assessed for relationships between funding source (industry, academic or cooperative, none, not described), COI (presented, none, or not reported), CT, and author characteristics. From 2010 to 2015, 319 CT were considered eligible. The majority of the studies involved primary gliomas (55.2%) and were Phase II CT (59.2%). Drug therapy was investigated in 83.0% of the CT. The remaining studies investigated surgery or radiotherapy. A minority of papers were published in journals with impact factor (IF) higher than > 10 (16%) or in regions other than North America and Europe (20.4%). Overall, 83.1% of studies disclosed funding sources: 32.6% from industry alone, 33.9% from an academic or cooperative group, and 10.7% from a mixed funding model. COI data was reported by 85.9% of trials, of which 56.2% reported no COI and 43.8% reported a related COI. Significant predictors for sponsorship (industry and/or academia) on univariate analysis were study design, type of intervention, journal impact factor, study conclusion, transparency of COI and presence of COI. On multivariate analysis, type of intervention, (P < 0.001), journal impact factor (IF) (P = 0.003), presence of COI (P < 0.001) and study conclusion (P = 0.003) remained significant predictors of sponsorship. For predicting COI, significant variables on univariate analysis were disease type, type of intervention, journal IF, funding source, and intervention arm being related to sponsor. On multivariate analysis, disease type (P = 0.003), journal IF (P < 0.001), type of intervention (P = 0.001), and funding source (P = 0.008) remained significant. The majority of CNS CT reported some external funding sources and non-related COI. We identified that drug trials, higher IF, presence of COI, and a neutral or negative study conclusion are associated with external funding. Likewise drug trials, higher IF, and glioma trials are associated with presence of COI.

The Impact of Financial Conflict of Interest on Surgical Research: An Observational Study of Published Manuscripts.

Substantial discrepancies exist between industry-reported and self-reported conflicts of interest (COI). Although authors with relevant, self-reported financial COI are more likely to write studies favorable to industry sponsors, it is unknown whether undisclosed COI have the same effect. We hypothesized that surgeons who fail to disclose COI are more likely to publish findings that are favorable to industry than surgeons with no COI. PubMed was searched for articles in multiple surgical specialties. Financial COI reported by surgeons and industry were compared. COI were considered to be relevant if they were associated with the product(s) mentioned by an article. Primary outcome was favorability, which was defined as an impression favorable to the product(s) discussed by an article and was determined by 3 independent, blinded clinicians for each article. Primary analysis compared incomplete self-disclosure to no COI. Ordered logistic multivariable regression modeling was used to assess factors associated with favorability. Overall, 337 articles were reviewed. There was a high rate of discordance in the reporting of COI (70.3%). When surgeons failed to disclose COI, their conclusions were significantly more likely to favor industry than surgeons without COI (RR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.4, p<0.001). On multivariable analysis, any COI (regardless of relevance, disclosure, or monetary amount) were significantly associated with favorability. Any financial COI (disclosed or undisclosed, relevant or not relevant) significantly influence whether studies report findings favorable to industry. More attention must be paid to improving research design, maximizing transparency in medical research, and insisting that surgeons disclose all COI, regardless of perceived relevance.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure in a Top-Tier Portuguese Medical Journal.

Scientific medical publications are considered to be a source of unbiased and independent information. Authors are requiredto disclose relationships with the pharmaceutical industry for transparency purposes. The aim of this work was to assess conflictof interest disclosure in a Portuguese top-tier medical journal by comparing authors' self-reported conflicts of interest with paymentslisted in the official database of Portuguese Ministry of Health. All articles published in the Portuguese Journal of Cardiology from December 2015 to May 2016 were reviewed.Articles based on clinical images, with authors affiliated to foreign institutions, editorials, letters to the editor, or submitted beforeJanuary 1st 2015 were excluded. Authors were categorized on concordance between self-reported disclosures and payments listed inthe database. Authors who authored multiple articles were counted as new authors, since each paper offered a new opportunity forfinancial disclosure. Of the 155 authors surveyed, 82 (53%) were in perfect concordance with the sunshine database, while 73 authors (47%) hadone or more undisclosed payments. Undisclosed payments totaled over € 210 000. Four (17%) articles mentioned a conflict of interest,24 articles (96%) had at least one author with undisclosed payments. None of the payments listed in the database was acknowledged in self-reported conflicts of interest. This might indicatethat authors do not consider their financial relationships with the industry to be relevant. The lack of concordance between self-reported conflicts of interest and payments found in the database raises concernsabout incomplete disclosure.

Trial sponsorship and self-reported conflicts of interest in breast cancer radiation therapy: An analysis of prospective clinical trials

PurposeWe aim to assess any association between study and self-reported conflict of interest (COI) or trial sponsorship in breast cancer radiation clinical trials. Materials and methodsWe searched PubMed for all clinical trials (CTs) published between 09/2004 and 09/2014 related to breast cancer. We included only radiotherapy CTs with primary clinical endpoints. We classified eligible trials according to the funding source, presence or absence of conflict of interest, study conclusion and impact factor (IF). Results1,603 CTs were retrieved. 72 randomized clinical trials were included for analysis. For-profit (PO), not for profit organization (nPO), none and not reported sponsorship rates were 9/72 (12.5%), 35/72 (48.6%), 1/72 (1.4%), 27/72 (37.5%), respectively. Present, absent or not reported COI were found in 6/72 (8.3%), 43/72 (59.7%) and 23/72 (32%) of the CTs, respectively. Conclusion was positive, neutral and negative in 57/72 (79.1%), 9/72 (12.5%) and 6/72 (8.4%) of the trials, respectively. Positive conclusion was reported in 33/44 (75%) funded trials (PO and nPO) and 5/6 (83.3%) CTs with reported COI. On univariate analysis no association with funding source (P=0.178), COI (P=0.678) or trial region (P=0.567) and trial positive conclusion was found. Sponsored trials (HR 4.50, 95CI-0.1.23-16.53;P=0.0023) and positive trials (HR 4.78, 95CI- 1.16-19.63;P=0.030) were more likely to be published in higher impact factor journals in the multivariate analysis. ConclusionsnPO funding was reported in almost 50% of the evaluated CTs. No significant association between study conclusion and funding source, COI or trial region was identified. Sponsored trials and positive trials were more likely to be published in higher impact factor journals.

Comparison of Conflicts of Interest among Published Hernia Researchers Self-Reported with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database

Many healthcare providers have financial interests and relationships with healthcare companies. To maintain transparency, investigators are expected to disclose their conflicts of interest (COIs). Recently, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services developed the Open Payment database of COIs reported by industry. We hypothesize that there is discordance between industry-reported and physician self-reported COIs in ventral hernia publications. PubMed was searched for ventral hernia studies accepted for publication between June 2013 and October 2015 and published by authors from the US. Conflicts of interest were defined as payments received as honoraria, consulting fees, compensation for serving as faculty or as a speaker at a venue, research funding payments, or having ownerships/partnerships in companies. Conflicts of interest disclosed on the published articles were compared with the financial relationships in the Open Payments database. A total of 100 studies were selected with 497 participating authors. Information was available from the Open Payments database for 245 (49.2%) authors, of which 134 (26.9%) met the definition for COI. When comparing COIs disclosed by authors and data in the Open Payments database, 81 (16.3%) authors had at least 1 COI but did not declare any, 35 (7.0%) authors had COIs other than what they declared, and 20 (4.0%) declared a COI not listed in the Open Payments database, for a combined discordance rate of 27.3%. There is substantial discordance between self-reported COI in published articles compared with those in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. Additional studies are needed to determine the reasons for these differences, as COI can influence the validity of the design, conduct, and results of a study.

Funding Source, Self-Reported Conflicts of Interest, and the Interpretation of Conclusions of Phase 1, 2, and 3 Trials in Neuro-Oncology

Funding Source, Self-Reported Conflicts of Interest, and the Interpretation of Conclusions of Phase 1, 2, and 3 Trials in Neuro-Oncology

Trial Sponsorship and Self-Reported Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Trials of Central Nervous System Malignancies

Trial Sponsorship and Self-Reported Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Trials of Central Nervous System Malignancies

Comparison of Self-Reported Conflict of Interest among Published Hernia Researchers to the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database

Comparison of Self-Reported Conflict of Interest among Published Hernia Researchers to the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database

EP-1360: Trial sponsorship, self-reported conflicts of interest of authors in breast cancer irradiation

EP-1360: Trial sponsorship, self-reported conflicts of interest of authors in breast cancer irradiation

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

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.