Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18461146›Full record

ArticlePloS one2008

Consistency of financial interest disclosures in the biomedical literature: the case of coronary stents.

Kevin P Weinfurt, Damon M Seils, Janice P Tzeng, Li Lin, Kevin A Schulman, Robert M Califf

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Conflict of interest policies and disclosure requirements among European Society of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Journals.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2012
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kevin P WeinfurtDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke Translational Medicine Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America. kevin.weinfurt@duke.edu
Damon M Seils
Janice P Tzeng
Li Lin
Kevin A Schulman
Robert M Califf

Funding

Pilot Project for the DTMI CRA ProgramUL1RR024128 · NCRR · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI CALIFF, ROBERT M · 2006 to 2010
$48.1M
Disclosing Conflict of Interest to Research ParticipantsR01HL075538 · NHLBI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI SUGARMAN, JEREMY · 2004 to 2008
$2.9M
NCRR NIH HHS 1UL1RR024128-02NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024128NHLBI NIH HHS 5R01HL075538-04NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL075538
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDisclosure of authors' financial interests has been proposed as a strategy for protecting the integrity of the biomedical literature. We examined whether authors' financial interests were disclosed consistently in articles on coronary stents published in 2006. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsWe searched PubMed for English-language articles published in 2006 that provided evidence or guidance regarding the use of coronary artery stents. We recorded article characteristics, including information about authors' financial disclosures. The main outcome measures were the prevalence, nature, and consistency of financial disclosures. There were 746 articles, 2985 authors, and 135 journals in the database. Eighty-three percent of the articles did not contain disclosure statements for any author (including declarations of no interests). Only 6% of authors had an article with a disclosure statement. In comparisons between articles by the same author, the types of disagreement were as follows: no disclosure statements vs declarations of no interests (64%); specific disclosures vs no disclosure statements (34%); and specific disclosures vs declarations of no interests (2%). Among the 75 authors who disclosed at least 1 relationship with an organization, there were 2 cases (3%) in which the organization was disclosed in every article the author wrote. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: In the rare instances when financial interests were disclosed, they were not disclosed consistently, suggesting that there are problems with transparency in an area of the literature that has important implications for patient care. Our findings suggest that the inconsistencies we observed are due to both the policies of journals and the behavior of some authors.

Indexed as

DisclosureFinancial SupportTruth DisclosureConflict of InterestCoronary DiseaseEditorial PoliciesHumansPeer Review, ResearchPublicationsResearch Support as TopicStents

Identifiers

PMID18461146
PMCPMC2330163

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.