Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28358886›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

"We can't get along without each other": Qualitative interviews with physicians about device industry representatives, conflict of interest and patient safety.

Anna R Gagliardi, Pascale Lehoux, Ariel Ducey, Anthony Easty, Sue Ross, Chaim Bell, Patricia Trbovich, David R Urbach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Ethically Problematic Medical Device Representation.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2020
    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

8 authors.

Anna R GagliardiToronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5721-809X
Pascale LehouxDepartment of Public Health Administration, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Ariel DuceyDepartment of Sociology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Anthony EastyInstitute of Biomaterial & Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sue RossWomen & Children's Health Research Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Chaim BellDepartment of General Internal Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Patricia TrbovichToronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
David R UrbachToronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPhysician relationships with device industry representatives have not been previously assessed. This study explored interactions with device industry representatives among physicians who use implantable cardiovascular and orthopedic devices to identify whether conflict of interest (COI) is a concern and how it is managed.

designA descriptive qualitative approach was used. Physicians who implant orthopedic and cardiovascular devices were identified in publicly available directories and web sites, and interviewed about their relationships with device industry representatives. Sampling was concurrent with data collection and analysis. Data were analyzed and discussed using constant comparative technique by all members of the research team.

resultsTwenty-two physicians (10 cardiovascular, 12 orthopedic) were interviewed. Ten distinct representative roles were identified: purchasing, training, trouble-shooting, supplying devices, assisting with device assembly and insertion, supporting operating room staff, mitigating liability, conveying information about recalls, and providing direct and indirect financial support. Participants recognized the potential for COI but representatives were present for the majority of implantations. Participants revealed a tension between physicians and representatives that was characterized as "symbiotic", but required physicians to be vigilant about COI and patient safety, particularly because representatives varied regarding disclosure of device defects. They described a concurrent tension between hospitals, whose policies and business practices were focused on cost-control, and physicians who were required to comply with those policies and use particular devices despite concerns about their safety and effectiveness.

conclusionsGiven the potential for COI and threats to patient safety, further research is needed to establish the clinical implications of the role of, and relationship with device industry representatives; and whether and how hospitals do and should govern interaction with representatives, or support their staff in this regard.

Indexed as

Conflict of InterestPhysiciansHumansPatient Safety

Identifiers

PMID28358886
PMCPMC5373623

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.