Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28050797›Full record

ReviewJournal of bioethical inquiry2017

Debates about Conflict of Interest in Medicine: Deconstructing a Divided Discourse.

Serena Purdy, Miles Little, Christopher Mayes, Wendy Lipworth

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Conflicts of interest in medicine: a never-ending story.Internal and emergency medicine · 2020
    Article
  8. Conflict of interest disclosure: striking a balance?The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Serena PurdyDepartment of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Miles LittleCentre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, Medical Foundation Building (K25), University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Christopher MayesCentre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, Medical Foundation Building (K25), University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Wendy LipworthCentre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, Medical Foundation Building (K25), University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. wendy.lipworth@sydney.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The pharmaceutical industry plays an increasingly dominant role in healthcare, raising concerns about "conflicts of interest" (COI) on the part of the medical professionals who interact with the industry. However, there is considerable disagreement over the extent to which COI is a problem and how it should be managed. Participants in debates about COI have become entrenched in their views, which is both unproductive and deeply confusing for the majority of medical professionals trying to work in an increasingly commercialized environment. We used a modified meta-narrative review method to analyse debates about COI in the academic and grey literature. We found two Discourse Models: The Critical Discourse Model sees COI in health and biomedicine as a major problem that both can and should be addressed, while the Defensive Discourse Model argues that current efforts to control COIs are at best unnecessary and at worst harmful. Each model is underpinned by profoundly differing views about how society should be organized-in particular whether market forces should be encouraged or curtailed-and how the dangers associated with market forces should be managed. In order to make any headway, academics and policymakers must recognize that these debates are underpinned by profoundly differing worldviews.

Indexed as

Conflict of InterestDisclosureDrug IndustryEthics, ProfessionalHumansPolicy MakingResearch Support as TopicSocieties, MedicalConflict of interestDiscourse analysisHealth policyMeta-narrative reviewPharmaceutical industry

Identifiers

PMID28050797

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.