ArticlePLoS medicine2010
Conflicts of interest at medical journals: the influence of industry-supported randomised trials on journal impact factors and revenue - cohort study.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 44 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
44 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence in the Diagnosis of Superficial Mycoses: A Scoping Review.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Mapping the evidence landscape of the oral microbiome-cancer relationship: insights from the 100 most-cited papers.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Article
- Gender and geographical bias in the editorial decision-making process of biomedical journals: a case-control study.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
- Conflicts of interest in clinical practice: lessons learned from cardiovascular medicine.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2024Review
- Is 'conflict of interest' a Misnomer? Managing interests in immunization research and evaluation.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2022Article
- Reflections after 2 years of COVID-19 pandemic.Reviews in medical virology · 2022Article
- The Invisible Hand of Industry.Clinical obstetrics and gynecology · 2022Article
- Article
- Cross-sectional study of medical advertisements in a national general medical journal: evidence, cost, and safe use of advertised versus comparative drugs.Research integrity and peer review · 2021Article
- Identifying competing interest disclosures in systematic reviews of surgical interventions and devices: a cross-sectional survey.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Accommodating an Uninvited Guest: Perspectives of Researchers in Switzerland on 'Honorary' Authorship.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Relationships among commercial practices and author conflicts of interest in biomedical publishing.PloS one · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
- Outcomes, Interventions and Funding in Randomised Research Published in High-Impact Journals.Trials · 2018Article
- Conflicts of interest in infection prevention and control research: no smoke without fire. A narrative review.Intensive care medicine · 2018Review
- Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundtransparency in reporting of conflict of interest is an increasingly important aspect of publication in medical journals. Publication of large industry-supported trials may generate many citations and journal income through reprint sales and thereby be a source of conflicts of interest for journals. We investigated industry-supported trials' influence on journal impact factors and revenue. METHODS AND
findingswe sampled six major medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine [NEJM]). For each journal, we identified randomised trials published in 1996-1997 and 2005-2006 using PubMed, and categorized the type of financial support. Using Web of Science, we investigated citations of industry-supported trials and the influence on journal impact factors over a ten-year period. We contacted journal editors and retrieved tax information on income from industry sources. The proportion of trials with sole industry support varied between journals, from 7% in BMJ to 32% in NEJM in 2005-2006. Industry-supported trials were more frequently cited than trials with other types of support, and omitting them from the impact factor calculation decreased journal impact factors. The decrease varied considerably between journals, with 1% for BMJ to 15% for NEJM in 2007. For the two journals disclosing data, income from the sales of reprints contributed to 3% and 41% of the total income for BMJ and The Lancet in 2005-2006.
conclusionspublication of industry-supported trials was associated with an increase in journal impact factors. Sales of reprints may provide a substantial income. We suggest that journals disclose financial information in the same way that they require them from their authors, so that readers can assess the potential effect of different types of papers on journals' revenue and impact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.