ArticleUrology practice2016
Urology Payments from Industry in the Sunshine Act.
Article in Urology practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trends in Industry Payments to Physicians in the First 6 Years After Graduate Medical Training.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- The Sun Is Still Shining: Nature of Industry Payments to Transplant Surgeons From 2014 to 2019.Transplantation direct · 2022Article
- Mining Open Payments Data: Analysis of Industry Payments to Thoracic Surgeons From 2014-2016.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
- Variation in Laparoscopic Nephrectomy Surgical Costs: Opportunities for High Value Care Delivery.Urology practice · 2018Article
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
Abstract
introductionPayments to practitioners from drug and device manufacturers or group purchasing organizations are reported in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) databases as a part of the Sunshine Act. Characterizing these payments is a necessary step to identifying conflicts of interest and the influence of payments on practice patterns, if any. Payments have never been analyzed in detail amongst Urologists. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe reviewed the most recent CMS Open Payments database for the full year 2014, released on June 30, 2015. Urology practitioners were extracted and the database was analyzed for number of total payments, total dollar value of payments, mean, median, number of physicians, number of manufacturers, and number of drugs/biologicals. Data were further categorized according to provider specialty, form of payment, nature of payment, practitioner ownership, and dispute status.
resultsPayments totaled $32,450,382. Practitioner payments were unevenly distributed, with a median payment of $15. The majority of payments were in the form of food and beverage. Female pelvic medicine practitioners received the highest payments out of the provider specialties. The largest categorical difference from the median was in the form of stock, options, and other ownership interests ($24,050). Ownership status and disputed payments were associated with payment values above median values ($400 and $61, respectively).
conclusionsThere are major disparities in industry payments to urology practitioners. Whether or not this influences practice patterns remains to be seen, though identifying categorical differences in payments is an important first step in the process.
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.