Conflicts of interest among dermatology textbook authors.
Journal
International journal of women's dermatology
ISSN: 2352-6475
Titre abrégé: Int J Womens Dermatol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101654170
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2019
Dec 2019
Historique:
received:
30
04
2019
revised:
03
08
2019
accepted:
04
08
2019
entrez:
8
1
2020
pubmed:
8
1
2020
medline:
8
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Conflict of interest as it relates to medical education is a burgeoning topic of concern. Dermatology textbooks are an influential resource for dermatologists. This study evaluates industry payments to authors of major dermatology textbooks. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate whether authors of dermatology textbooks had appreciable conflicts of interest in the form of payments from industry. This is a retrospective study in which the authors and editors of eight commonly used general dermatology textbooks were entered into the ProPublica Dollars for Docs database to identify industry payments data from 2016. The total compensation for 381 authors in 2016 was $5,892,221. Zero payments were reported for 39.6% of authors. Of the dermatologists, 50%, 66%, 70%, and 81% received less than $100, $500, $1000, and $5000, respectively. The top 10% of dermatologists who collected payments received $5,267,494, which represented 89% of the total payment amount. The study was limited to eight textbooks. Data are only as accurate as reported to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The database does not include information on dermatologists from non-U.S. institutions. Funding for clinical trials and other avenues of support (e.g., lasers, cosmetic instruments, institutional payments) are also not captured in this database. A minority of authors of influential dermatology textbooks received the lion's share of payments from industry.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Conflict of interest as it relates to medical education is a burgeoning topic of concern. Dermatology textbooks are an influential resource for dermatologists. This study evaluates industry payments to authors of major dermatology textbooks.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The primary objective of this study is to evaluate whether authors of dermatology textbooks had appreciable conflicts of interest in the form of payments from industry.
METHODS
METHODS
This is a retrospective study in which the authors and editors of eight commonly used general dermatology textbooks were entered into the ProPublica Dollars for Docs database to identify industry payments data from 2016.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The total compensation for 381 authors in 2016 was $5,892,221. Zero payments were reported for 39.6% of authors. Of the dermatologists, 50%, 66%, 70%, and 81% received less than $100, $500, $1000, and $5000, respectively. The top 10% of dermatologists who collected payments received $5,267,494, which represented 89% of the total payment amount.
LIMITATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The study was limited to eight textbooks. Data are only as accurate as reported to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The database does not include information on dermatologists from non-U.S. institutions. Funding for clinical trials and other avenues of support (e.g., lasers, cosmetic instruments, institutional payments) are also not captured in this database.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
A minority of authors of influential dermatology textbooks received the lion's share of payments from industry.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31909159
doi: 10.1016/j.ijwd.2019.08.003
pii: S2352-6475(19)30091-7
pmc: PMC6938826
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
368-371Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2007 Apr 26;356(17):1742-50
pubmed: 17460228
JAMA Dermatol. 2017 Dec 1;153(12):1229-1235
pubmed: 29049553
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2018 Apr-Jun;9(2):59-68
pubmed: 29400625
Ophthalmology. 2015 Apr;122(4):656-61
pubmed: 25578254
Ann Emerg Med. 2016 Aug;68(2):153-158.e4
pubmed: 26973175
Neurosurgery. 2016 Dec;79(6):933-938
pubmed: 27580479
JAMA Dermatol. 2016 Dec 1;152(12):1307-1313
pubmed: 27706478
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Oct;473(10):3297-306
pubmed: 26088767
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 11;10(6):e0129197
pubmed: 26067810
PLoS Med. 2012;9(3):e1001190
pubmed: 22427747
Br J Dermatol. 2018 Jun;178(6):1229-1232
pubmed: 29897125
Br J Dermatol. 2015 Dec;173(6):1518-21
pubmed: 26708549
Acta Derm Venereol. 2006;86(6):485-97
pubmed: 17106594
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015 Jun;152(6):993-9
pubmed: 25779469
Ann Intern Med. 2010 Aug 17;153(4):268-9
pubmed: 20595332
Arch Intern Med. 2006 Mar 27;166(6):623-8
pubmed: 16567600
Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Feb;127(2):376-82
pubmed: 26942368
N Engl J Med. 2013 May 30;368(22):2054-7
pubmed: 23718163
JAMA Dermatol. 2014 May;150(5):487-93
pubmed: 24740450
JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Nov 1;176(11):1680-1685
pubmed: 27617709
Arch Surg. 2010 Jun;145(6):570-7
pubmed: 20566978
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000 Sep;43(3):550-4
pubmed: 10954674
Ann Intern Med. 2014 Oct 7;161(7):519-21
pubmed: 25069795
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 27;10(7):e0133261
pubmed: 26214515