Conflict of Interest at Plastic Surgery Conferences: Is It Significant?
Journal
Plastic and reconstructive surgery
ISSN: 1529-4242
Titre abrégé: Plast Reconstr Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 1306050
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2019
08 2019
Historique:
entrez:
27
7
2019
pubmed:
28
7
2019
medline:
16
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The Physician Payment Sunshine Act requires biomedical companies to disclose financial relationships between themselves and physicians. The authors compared the amount of money received by speakers at the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery annual conferences with that received by the average plastic surgeon. General payments data were gathered from the Open Payments database for physicians listed as a presenter, moderator, panelist, lecturer, or instructor at the 2017 annual American Society of Plastic Surgeons and American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery conferences. Means and medians of payments to speakers were calculated for each conference. One-tail t tests were used to evaluate differences. The mean and median for general payments made to conference speakers at American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (n = 75) and American Society of Plastic Surgeons (n = 249) meeting were $75,577 and $861 and $27,562 and $1021, respectively. In comparison with the average general payment received by plastic surgeons (mean, $4788; median, $3209), these differences were significant (American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, p = 0.015; American Society of Plastic Surgeons, p = 0.0004). The significant difference in payments to speakers at conferences compared with the average plastic surgeon suggests that biomedical companies may have influence over some of the conference content. Speakers must make clear the full extent of industry relationships that could potentially bias their presentations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The Physician Payment Sunshine Act requires biomedical companies to disclose financial relationships between themselves and physicians. The authors compared the amount of money received by speakers at the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery annual conferences with that received by the average plastic surgeon.
METHODS
General payments data were gathered from the Open Payments database for physicians listed as a presenter, moderator, panelist, lecturer, or instructor at the 2017 annual American Society of Plastic Surgeons and American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery conferences. Means and medians of payments to speakers were calculated for each conference. One-tail t tests were used to evaluate differences.
RESULTS
The mean and median for general payments made to conference speakers at American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (n = 75) and American Society of Plastic Surgeons (n = 249) meeting were $75,577 and $861 and $27,562 and $1021, respectively. In comparison with the average general payment received by plastic surgeons (mean, $4788; median, $3209), these differences were significant (American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, p = 0.015; American Society of Plastic Surgeons, p = 0.0004).
CONCLUSIONS
The significant difference in payments to speakers at conferences compared with the average plastic surgeon suggests that biomedical companies may have influence over some of the conference content. Speakers must make clear the full extent of industry relationships that could potentially bias their presentations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31348372
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005877
pii: 00006534-201908000-00048
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
308e-313eCommentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Références
Chao AH, Gangopadhyay N. Industry financial relationships in plastic surgery: Analysis of the Sunshine Act Open Payments Database. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:341e–348e.
Brennan TA, Rothman DJ, Blank L, et al. Health industry practices that create conflicts of interest: A policy proposal for academic medical centers. JAMA 2006;295:429–433.
Momeni A, Becker A, Bannasch H, Antes G, Blümle A, Stark GB. Association between research sponsorship and study outcome in plastic surgery literature. Ann Plast Surg. 2009;63:661–664.
Lopez J, Prifogle E, Nyame TT, Milton J, May JW Jr. The impact of conflicts of interest in plastic surgery: An analysis of acellular dermal matrix, implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:1328–1334.
Kairinos N, Kamlen P, Solomons M, Hudson D, Kahn D. The influence manufacturers have on negative-pressure wound therapy research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:1178–1183.
DeGeorge BR Jr, Holland MC, Drake DB. The impact of conflict of interest in abdominal wall reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix. Ann Plast Surg. 2015;74:242–247.
Voineskos SH, Coroneos CJ, Ziolkowski NI, et al. A systematic review of surgical randomized controlled trials: Part 2. Funding source, conflict of interest, and sample size in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:453e–461e.
Ahmed R, Lopez J, Bae S, et al. The dawn of transparency: Insights from the Physician Payment Sunshine Act in plastic surgery. Ann Plast Surg. 2017;78:315–323.
Lopez J, Musavi L, Quan A, et al. Trends, frequency, and nature of surgeon-reported conflicts of interest in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;140:852–861.
Luce EA. Financial conflicts of interest in plastic surgery: Background, potential for bias, disclosure, and transparency. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135:1149–1155.
Lopez J, Samaha G, Purvis TE, et al. The accuracy of conflict-of-interest disclosures reported by plastic surgeons and industry. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141:1592–1599.
Jelinek GA, Neate SL. The influence of the pharmaceutical industry in medicine. J Law Med. 2009;17:216–223.
Salary.com. Surgeon: Plastic reconstructive salary in the United States. Available at: https://www1.salary.com/Surgeon-Plastic-Reconstructive-salary.html. Accessed April 1, 2018.
Carragee EJ, Ghanayem AJ, Weiner BK, Rothman DJ, Bono CM. A challenge to integrity in spine publications: Years of living dangerously with the promotion of bone growth factors. Spine J. 2011;11:463–468.
Zuckerman JD, Prasarn M, Kubiak EN, Koval KJ. Conflict of interest in orthopaedic research. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:423–428.
Psaty BM, Kronmal RA. Reporting mortality findings in trials of rofecoxib for Alzheimer disease or cognitive impairment: A case study based on documents from rofecoxib litigation. JAMA 2008;299:1813–1817.
Spielmans GI, Parry PI. From evidence-based medicine to marketing-based medicine: Evidence from internal industry documents. J Bioeth Inq. 2010;7:13–29.
Choo KJ, Paul HY, Burns R, Mohan R, Wong K. Variable reporting by authors presenting arthroplasty research at multiple annual conferences. J Arthroplasty 2017;32:315–319.
Wong K, Yi PH, Mohan R, Choo KJ. Variability in conflict of interest disclosures by physicians presenting trauma research. World J Orthop. 2017;8:329–335.
Sismondo S. Key opinion leaders and the corruption of medical knowledge: What the Sunshine Act will and won’t cast light on. J Law Med Ethics 2013;41:635–643.
Nair HS, Manchanda P, Bhatia T. Asymmetric social interactions in physician prescription behavior: The role of opinion leaders. J Market Res. 2010;47:883–895.