Are conflict of interest declarations appropriate to allow sufficient consideration of potential bias in presentations?

Conflicts of interest disclosure medical education

Journal

Future healthcare journal
ISSN: 2514-6645
Titre abrégé: Future Healthc J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101711246

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Oct 2020
Historique:
entrez: 23 10 2020
pubmed: 24 10 2020
medline: 24 10 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Potential conflicts of interest (CoI) are common in medical research, necessitating the use of CoI declarations. There is currently no consensus document or external authority guiding CoI declarations in conference settings, resulting in declarations of variable quality and utility. We explored four CoI declaration parameters (sufficient slide display time; the presence of any verbal explanation pertaining to relevant CoI; the use of an adequate font size; and whether the nature and relevance of the CoI was described). Parameters were graded from one to three points, with the sum of parameters providing an overall declaration quality out of 12. We then applied this scoring system to recordings of presentations from the British Cardiovascular Society (BCS) annual conference 2018 which were available online. Sixty-nine presentations were suitable for inclusion, of which 47 (68%) contained a CoI statement. Thirty-six of the 47 (77%) presentations declared that they had no CoI. In the remaining 11 (23%) with reported CoI, the median time spent displaying CoI was 1 second (interquartile range (IQR) 0.7-3.3). The median quality score for presentations was 7 (IQR 6-10). This study demonstrates utility in considering aspects of CoI declarations at conferences to improve transparency.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Potential conflicts of interest (CoI) are common in medical research, necessitating the use of CoI declarations. There is currently no consensus document or external authority guiding CoI declarations in conference settings, resulting in declarations of variable quality and utility.
METHODS METHODS
We explored four CoI declaration parameters (sufficient slide display time; the presence of any verbal explanation pertaining to relevant CoI; the use of an adequate font size; and whether the nature and relevance of the CoI was described). Parameters were graded from one to three points, with the sum of parameters providing an overall declaration quality out of 12. We then applied this scoring system to recordings of presentations from the British Cardiovascular Society (BCS) annual conference 2018 which were available online.
RESULTS RESULTS
Sixty-nine presentations were suitable for inclusion, of which 47 (68%) contained a CoI statement. Thirty-six of the 47 (77%) presentations declared that they had no CoI. In the remaining 11 (23%) with reported CoI, the median time spent displaying CoI was 1 second (interquartile range (IQR) 0.7-3.3). The median quality score for presentations was 7 (IQR 6-10).
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrates utility in considering aspects of CoI declarations at conferences to improve transparency.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33094234
doi: 10.7861/fhj.2020-0018
pii: futurehealth
pmc: PMC7571736
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

226-229

Informations de copyright

© Royal College of Physicians 2020. All rights reserved.

Références

N Engl J Med. 2007 Apr 26;356(17):1742-50
pubmed: 17460228
BMJ. 2016 Jul 06;354:i3730
pubmed: 27383187
BMJ. 2013 Jul 26;347:f4704
pubmed: 23894181
JAMA. 2012 Nov 28;308(20):2093-4
pubmed: 23188024
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 16;2:MR000033
pubmed: 28207928
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Aug 05;8:MR000047
pubmed: 31425611
N Engl J Med. 2009 Nov 5;361(19):1896-7
pubmed: 19825973
BMJ Open. 2017 Sep 21;7(9):e017019
pubmed: 28939580
BMJ Open. 2018 Nov 8;8(11):e023534
pubmed: 30413513
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2016;1:
pubmed: 27158530
PLoS One. 2017 Apr 13;12(4):e0175493
pubmed: 28406971

Auteurs

William Crawford (W)

University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
authors are joint first co-authors.

C Fielder Camm (CF)

Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading, UK.
authors are joint first co-authors.

Ishika Prachee (I)

University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Jack Olivarius-McAllister (J)

University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Matthew R Ginks (MR)

Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.

Edward D Nicol (ED)

Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK and honorary senior lecturer, National Heart and Lung Institute, London, UK.

Classifications MeSH