ArticleClinical and translational medicine2015
Benchmarks for ethically credible partnerships between industry and academic health centers: beyond disclosure of financial conflicts of interest.
Article in Clinical and translational medicine, 2015. 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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Institutional conflicts of interest in health-related research - a scoping review.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- A framework for developing successful academic-industry partnerships for cardiovascular innovations.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Review
- Rules of engagement: Promoting academic-industry partnership in the era of digital pathology and artificial intelligence.Academic pathology · 2022Review
- Data in question: A survey of European biobank professionals on ethical, legal and societal challenges of biobank research.PloS one · 2019Article
- Health, wealth and behavioural change: an exploration of role responsibilities in the wake of epigenetics.Journal of community genetics · 2018Article
- Reporting of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest by authors of systematic reviews: a methodological survey.BMJ open · 2016Article
- Erratum to: Benchmarks for ethically credible partnerships between industry and academic health centers: beyond disclosure of financial conflicts of interest.Clinical and translational medicine · 2016Article
- Neuroethicists' Perspectives on Ethical Issues in Neurotechnology Industry-Academia Partnerships.AJOB neuroscienceArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Relationships between industry and university-based researchers have been commonplace for decades and have received notable attention concerning the conflicts of interest these relationships may harbor. While new efforts are being made to update conflict of interest policies and make industry relationships with academia more transparent, the development of broader institutional partnerships between industry and academic health centers challenges the efficacy of current policy to effectively manage these innovative partnerships. In this paper, we argue that existing strategies to reduce conflicts of interest are not sufficient to address the emerging models of industry-academic partnerships because they focus too narrowly on financial matters and are not comprehensive enough to mitigate all ethical risk. Moreover, conflict-of-interest strategies are not designed to promote best practices nor the scientific and social benefits of academic-industry collaboration. We propose a framework of principles and benchmarks for "ethically credible partnerships" between industry and academic health centers and describe how this framework may provide a practical and comprehensive approach for designing and evaluating such partnerships.
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.