ArticleSeminars in oncology2017
The Sunshine Act and oncology: Lessons learned from urology.
Article in Seminars in oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe Physician Payment Sunshine Act was enacted to increase the transparency of financial relationships between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry. These financial relationships are prevalent in the field of oncology, as they are in other fields of medicine. We explored the relationship between industry and urologists for compensations associated with the treatment of urologic malignancies.
methodsThe publicly available Open Payments database was obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. We performed a descriptive analysis of payments made to urologists for drugs associated with urologic malignancies.
resultsIn total, 44,334 payments, summing to $ 4,638,856, were made to 5,666 urologists for drugs used to treat urologic cancers. The median payment per transaction was $14, and most (74.3%) were £ $20. Of the transactions, 39,368 (88.8%) were associated with drugs for prostate cancer, 3,475 (7.8%) for bladder cancer, and 1,491 (3.4%) for kidney cancer. Most payments were made the form of food or beverage (89%), equating to $826,667.
conclusionsFor urologists, industry payments associated with cancer treatment are prevalent. Treatments for prostate cancer are associated with the most financial relationships, followed by bladder cancer and kidney cancer. Payments are small in amount, and are commonly in the form of food or beverage.
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.