ArticleAnnals of surgery2018
Assessment of Conflicts of Interest in Robotic Surgical Studies: Validating Author's Declarations With the Open Payments Database.
Article in Annals of surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The ethical landscape of robot-assisted surgery: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Reporting of conflicts of interest by authors of primary studies on health policy and systems research: a cross-sectional survey.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair: multicenter, blinded randomized controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Trial
- Surgical society committee members disclosure of conflict of interest: show me the money.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Review
- Robotics, money and research: is data or physician payments driving robotic bariatric surgery literature?Surgical endoscopy · 2025Review
- Conflict of interest and risk of bias in systematic reviews on methylphenidate for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a cross-sectional study.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Self-reporting of Conflicts of Interest by Ophthalmology Researchers Compared with the Open Payments Database Industry Reports.Ophthalmology · 2023Observational
- The impact of disclosure of conflicts of interest in studies comparing robot-assisted and laparoscopic cholecystectomies-a persistent problem.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Review
- Funding has no effect on clinical outcomes of total joint arthroplasty emerging technologies: a systematic review of bibliometrics and conflicts of interest.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2022Article
- Comparative effectiveness of robotic and open radical prostatectomy.Translational andrology and urology · 2021Review
- The Policies for the Disclosure of Funding and Conflict of Interest in Surgery Journals: A Cross-Sectional Survey.World journal of surgery · 2021Article
- Identifying competing interest disclosures in systematic reviews of surgical interventions and devices: a cross-sectional survey.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Transparency in surgical randomized clinical trials: cross-sectional observational study.BJS open · 2020Observational
- Next-generation robotics in gastrointestinal surgery.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2020Review
- Comparison of Cancer Specific Outcomes following Minimally Invasive and Open Surgical Resection of Early Stage Kidney Cancer from a National Cancer Registry.The Journal of urology · 2020Observational
- Disclosure at #SAGES2018: An analysis of physician-industry relationships of invited speakers at the 2018 SAGES national meeting.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Association of Compensation From the Surgical and Medical Device Industry to Physicians and Self-declared Conflict of Interest.JAMA surgery · 2018Article
- Do Robotics and Virtual Reality Add Real Progress to Mirror Therapy Rehabilitation? A Scoping Review.Rehabilitation research and 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate conflict of interest (COI) statements are important, as a known COI may invalidate study results due to the potential risk of bias.
objectiveTo determine the accuracy of self-declared COI statements in robotic studies and identify risk factors for undeclared payments.
methodsRobotic surgery studies were identified through EMBASE and MEDLINE and included if published in 2015 and had at least one American author. Undeclared COI were determined by comparing the author's declared COI with industry reported payments found in the "Open Payments" database for 2013 and 2014. Undeclared payments and discrepancies in the COI statement were determined. Risk factors were assessed for an association with undeclared payments at the author and study level.
resultsA total of 458 studies (2253 authors) were included. Approximately, 240 (52%) studies had 1 or more author receive undeclared payments and included 183 where "no COI" was explicitly declared, and 57 with no declaration statement present. Moreover, 21% of studies and 18% of authors with a COI declared it so in a COI statement. Studies that had undeclared payments from Intuitive were more likely to recommend robotic surgery compared with those that declared funding (odds ratio 4.29, 95% confidence interval 2.55-7.21).
conclusionsWe found that it was common for payments from Intuitive to be undeclared in robotic surgery articles. Mechanisms for accountability in COI reporting need to be put into place by journals to achieve appropriate transparency to those reading the journal article.
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.