Undisclosed Conflict of Interest Is Prevalent in Spine Literature.
Journal
Spine
ISSN: 1528-1159
Titre abrégé: Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7610646
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Nov 2020
01 Nov 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
7
7
2020
medline:
13
1
2021
entrez:
7
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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.
Sections du résumé
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Cohort study.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
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.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
BACKGROUND
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.
METHODS
METHODS
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.
RESULTS
RESULTS
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.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
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.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
3.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32628433
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003589
pii: 00007632-202011010-00018
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1524-1529Références
Cher DJ, Capobianco RA. Spine device clinical trials: design and sponsorship. Spine J 2015; 15:1133–1140.
Errico T. The promethean role of industry in spine surgery research. J Spinal Disord Tech 2010; 23:491–492.
Weiner JA, Cook RW, Hashmi S, et al. Factors associated with financial relationships between spine surgeons and industry. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017; 42:1412–1418.
Shah RV, Albert TJ, Bruegel-Sanchez V, et al. Industry support and correlation to study outcome for papers published in Spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30:1099–1104.
Martinson BC, Anderson MS, De Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005; 435:737–738.
Okike K, Kocher MS, Mehlman CT, et al. Conflict of interest in orthopaedic research: an association between findings and funding in scientific presentations. J Bone Jt Surg Am 2007; 89:608–613.
Kjaergard LL, Als-Nielsen B. Association between competing interests and authors’ conclusions: Epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ. Br Med J 2002; 325:249–252.
Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, et al. Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA 2003; 290:921–928.
Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D, et al. Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. Cmaj 2004; 170:477–480.
Agrawal S, Brennan N, Budetti P. The Sunshine Act—effects on physicians. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:2054–2057.
Kirschner NM, Sulmasy LS, Kesselheim AS. Health policy basics: the physician payment sunshine act and the open payments program. Ann Intern Med 2014; 161:519–521.
Samuel AM, Webb ML, Lukasiewicz AM, et al. Orthopaedic surgeons receive the most industry payments to physicians but large disparities are seen in Sunshine Act data. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473:3297–3306.
Matsen FA, Jette JL, Neradilek MB. Demographics of disclosure of conflicts of interest at the 2011 annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95:e29.
Chimonas S, Frosch Z, Rothman DJ. From disclosure to transparency: the use of company payment data. Arch Intern Med 2011; 171:81–86.
Jegede K, Whang P, Grauer JN. Substantial variation in the interpretation of financial disclosure policies for orthopaedic society meetings. JBJS 2011; 93:e75.
Okike K, Kocher MS, Wei EX, et al. Accuracy of conflict-of-interest disclosures reported by physicians. N Engl J Med 2009; 361:1466–1474.
Janney CF, Shazadeh Safavi K, Schneider GJ, et al. Disclosures undisclosed. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2019; 101:e50.
Drazen JM, Van Der Weyden MB, Sahni P, et al. Uniform format for disclosure of competing interests in ICMJE journals. JAMA 2010; 303:75–76.
de Lotbiniere-Bassett MP, Riva-Cambrin J, McDonald PJ. Conflict of interest policies and disclosure requirements in neurosurgical journals. J Neurosurg 2018; 1:1–7.
Tringale KR, Marshall D, Mackey TK, et al. Types and distribution of payments from industry to physicians in 2015. Jama 2017; 317:1774–1784.
Parisi TJ, Ferre IM, Rubash HE. The basics of the sunshine act: How it pertains to the practicing orthopaedic surgeon. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2015; 23:455–467.
Brand RA, Buckwalter JA, Talman CL, et al. Industrial support of orthopaedic research in the academic setting. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; 412:45–53.
Jacobs JJ, Galante JO, Mirza SK, et al. Symposium: relationships with industry: critical for new technology or an unnecessary evil? JBJS 2006; 88:1650–1651.
Field RE, Shimmin A, Cattani L. Orthopaedics and industry: an uneasy alliance? Bone Jt 2012; 1:7–10.
Lopez J, Ahmed R, Bae S, et al. A new culture of transparency: industry payments to orthopedic surgeons. Orthopedics 2016; 39:e1058–e1062.
White AP, Vaccaro AR, Zdeblick T. Counterpoint: physician-industry relationships can be ethically established, and conflicts of interest can be ethically managed. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32:S53–S57.
Gelberman RH, Samson D, Mirza SK, et al. Orthopaedic surgeons and the medical device industry: the threat to scientific integrity and the public trust. JBJS 2010; 92:765–777.
Ana J, Koehlmoos T, Smith R, et al. Research misconduct in low-and middle-income countries. PLoS Med 2013; 10:e1001315.
Smith R. Research misconduct: the poisoning of the well. J R Soc Med 2006; 99:232–237.
2011; Carragee EJ, Hurwitz EL, Weiner BK. A critical review of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 trials in spinal surgery: emerging safety concerns and lessons learned. spine J. 11:471–491.
Carragee EJ, Hurwitz EL, Weiner BK, et al. Future directions for The spine journal: managing and reporting conflict of interest issues. Spine J 2011; 11:695–697.