ArticleBMJ open2015
Conflict-of-interest disclosure at medical journals in Japan: a nationwide survey of the practices of journal secretariats.
Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Discrepancies in Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures Among Physicians Receiving Compensation for Monoclonal Antibody Drugs.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Article
- Editors Should Declare Conflicts of Interest.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2019Article
- Evaluation of Pharmaceutical Company Payments and Conflict of Interest Disclosures Among Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Authors in Japan.JAMA network open · 2019Article
- Conflicts of interest disclosure policies among Chinese medical journals: A cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2019Article
- A guide to applying the Good Publication Practice 3 guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region.Research integrity and peer review · 2019Article
- Authorship, plagiarism and conflict of interest: views and practices from low/middle-income country health researchers.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Reporting of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest by authors of systematic reviews: a methodological survey.BMJ open · 2016Article
- Promoting Education Regarding Conflict of Interest Management.Journal of Korean medical science · 2016Article
- Conflicts of interest policies for authors, peer reviewers, and editors of bioethics journals.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMedical journals in Japan generally have appropriate policies regarding disclosure of conflicts of interest (COI). However, COI management depends on the staff members of each journal's editorial secretariat. This study's objectives were to find out (A) whether COI disclosure and the journal's role in it are clearly understood by the journal's secretariat staff, (B) how much experience the editorial secretariat has in actually handling issues related to disclosure and (C) what kind of help or support they need. SETTING AND
designIn January 2014, questionnaires were sent to the editorial secretariats of journal-publishing societies belonging to the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences (JAMS).
participantsThe response rate was 100%, and the respondents represented 121 journals published by the 118 JAMS member societies (at the time of the survey). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Information was collected on the history of COI policies and on how those policies were implemented. At the end of the questionnaire, there was an open-ended call for comments.
resultsCompulsory COI disclosure began between 2010 and 2013 for 60.3% of the journals (73/121). Handling of COI issues was not uniform: 17.4% (21/121) of respondents do not pursue cases of dubious disclosure, and 47.9% (58/121) do not require COI disclosures from editorial board members. Very few of the editorial secretariats had clearly-stated consequences for violations of COI-disclosure policy (33/121, 27.3%), and only 28.9% offered COI education (35/121). Respondents' comments indicated that uniform, easily-searchable guidance regarding COI policies and implementation would be welcome.
conclusionsAlthough commitment is widespread, policy implementation is inconsistent and COI experience is lacking. Clear, easy-to-use guidelines are desired by many societies. The JAMS is to be commended for supporting this country-wide investigation; other countries and regions are encouraged to perform similar investigations to respond to needs regarding COI management.
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.