Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20597019›Full record

ArticleAccountability in research2010

Key personnel and "long distance" settings: determining who must report financial conflict of interest.

John Lynch, Christopher J Lindsell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Accountability in research, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

John LynchCenter for Clinical and Translational Science and Training, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45229, USA. john.lynch@uc.edu
Christopher J Lindsell

Funding

CTSA INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PEDIATRIC RESEARCHUL1RR026314 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI HEUBI, JAMES E. · 2009 to 2011
$14.3M
NCRR NIH HHS 1UL1RR026314-01NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR026314
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conflicts of interest (COIs) can impact the integrity of scientific research. While public imagination has focused on scientists, regulatory discourse recognizes a broader range of individuals who might have financial COIs. This essay asks, for personnel who enroll subjects at a physical and organizational remove from the primary research team, whether reporting COI to an institutional review board or COI committee protects research integrity. After examining definitions of COI, regulations on COI, and rubrics for evaluating COI policies, we argue that requiring recruitment personnel who work at a distance from the primary research team to report potential COI protects neither research integrity nor human subjects.

Indexed as

Conflict of InterestBiomedical ResearchEmergency Medical TechniciansFinancial ManagementHumansOrganizational PolicyPatient SelectionResearch Personnel

Identifiers

PMID20597019
PMCPMC2916172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.