ArticleJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology2013
Correlation between financial relationships with commercial interests and research prominence at an oncology meeting.
Article in Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Distribution and Patterns of Industry-Related Payments to Oncologists in 2014.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeLittle is known about the effects of financial relationships between biomedical researchers and industry (financial conflicts of interest [FCOIs]) on research prominence. We examined the prevalence of FCOIs in oncology and associations between FCOIs and research prominence among abstracts presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meetings.
methodsWe analyzed 20,718 abstracts presented at ASCO meetings in 2006 and 2008 to 2011. Measures included the following: financial relationships, peer review score (PRS), and meeting placement prominence (descending order of prominence: plenary session, clinical science symposium, oral presentation, poster discussion, general posters, and publish only).
resultsOf 20,718 abstracts, 36% reported at least one author with an FCOI. The proportion of abstracts with any FCOI increased from 33% in 2006 to 38% in 2011 (P < .001). Abstracts with FCOIs had significantly higher meeting prominence compared with publish only and general poster abstracts. The odds ratios compared with general posters were 7.3 for plenary session, 2.2 for clinical science symposium, 1.9 for oral presentation, and 1.7 for poster discussion (P < .001). Abstracts with FCOIs had significantly better PRSs compared with those without FCOIs. For all abstracts, PRS was 2.76 (95% CI, 2.75 to 2.77) with FCOIs compared with 3.01 (95% CI, 3.001 to 3.02) without FCOIs (P < .001). Omitting publish-only abstracts, PRS was 2.62 (95% CI, 2.61 to 2.63) with FCOIs compared with 2.73 without FCOIs (95% CI, 2.71 to 2.73).
conclusionAbstracts with FCOIs had more prominent meeting placement and better PRSs. FCOIs were reported more frequently by year, suggesting an increasing influence of industry on cancer research, greater disclosure, or both.
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.