ReviewCroatian medical journal2013
Conflicts of interest in biomedical publications: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors.
Review in Croatian medical journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Conflicts of interest in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: associations with recommendations.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Industry sponsorship and research outcome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Disclosure of Financial Conflicts of Interests in Interventions to Improve Child Psychosocial Health: A Cross-Sectional Study.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- A literature review of non-financial conflicts of interest in healthcare research and publication.BMC medical ethics · 2025Review
- Peer Reviewers in Central Asia: Publons Based Analysis.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Article
- Top Central Asian Educational Institutions on Publons: Analysis of Researchers and Reviewers.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Article
- Peer review guidance: a primer for researchers.Reumatologia · 2021Article
- Rheumatology science and practice in India.Rheumatology international · 2018Review
- Real-world Evidence versus Randomized Controlled Trial: Clinical Research Based on Electronic Medical Records.Journal of Korean medical science · 2018Article
- Improving the adaptability of WHO evidence-informed guidelines for nutrition actions: results of a mixed methods evaluation.Implementation science : IS · 2017Article
- Statement on Publication Ethics for Editors and Publishers.Journal of Korean medical science · 2016Review
- Promoting Education Regarding Conflict of Interest Management.Journal of Korean medical science · 2016Article
- Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.Science and engineering ethics · 2016Article
- Randomized controlled trials - a matter of design.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2016Review
- Essential Components of Educational Programs on Biomedical Writing, Editing, and Publishing.Journal of Korean medical science · 2015Review
- Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication.Journal of Korean medical science · 2015Review
- Safeguarding the integrity of science communication by restraining 'rational cheating' in peer review.Journal of Korean medical science · 2014Review
- Why double-blind review is preferable for scholarly journals.Journal of Korean medical science · 2014Article
- The urge to publish more and its consequences.Daru : journal of Faculty of Pharmacy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences · 2014Article
- Upgrading instructions for authors of scholarly journals.Croatian medical journal · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article overviews evidence on common instances of conflict of interest (COI) in research publications from general and specialized fields of biomedicine. Financial COIs are viewed as the most powerful source of bias, which may even distort citation outcomes of sponsored publications. The urge to boost journal citation indicators by stakeholders of science communication is viewed as a new secondary interest, which may compromize the interaction between authors, peer reviewers and editors. Comprehensive policies on disclosure of financial and non-financial COIs in scholarly journals are presented as proxies of their indexing in evidence-based databases, and examples of successful medical journals are discussed in detail. Reports on clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and clinical practice guidelines may be unduly influenced by author-pharmaceutical industry relations, but these publications do not always contain explicit disclosures to allow the readers to judge the reliability of the published conclusions and practice-changing recommendations. The article emphasizes the importance of adhering to the guidance on COI from learned associations such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). It also considers joint efforts of authors, peer reviewers and editors as a foundation for appropriately defining and disclosing potential COIs.
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.