ArticleJAMA surgery2018
Association of Compensation From the Surgical and Medical Device Industry to Physicians and Self-declared Conflict of Interest.
Article in JAMA surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surgical society committee members disclosure of conflict of interest: show me the money.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Disclosure of Industry Relationships by Otolaryngologists.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
- Discrepancies in Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures Among Physicians Receiving Compensation for Monoclonal Antibody Drugs.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Article
- The SUPER reporting guideline suggested for reporting of surgical technique: explanation and elaboration.Gland surgery · 2023Article
- Conflict of interest and disclosure in healthcare: We can do better.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- A cross-sectional examination of conflict-of-interest disclosures of physician-authors publishing in high-impact US medical journals.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Patient Selection for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Treatment of Pain: Sequential Decision-Making Model - A Narrative Review.Journal of pain research · 2022Review
- Physicians payment in the United States between 2014 and 2018: An analysis of the CMS Open Payments database.PloS one · 2021Article
- Research transparency promotion by surgical journals publishing randomised controlled trials: a survey.Trials · 2020Article
- Disclosure at #SAGES2018: An analysis of physician-industry relationships of invited speakers at the 2018 SAGES national meeting.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Article
- Barriers to conducting a multi-center randomized controlled trial of surgical stabilization of rib fractures (and how to overcome them).Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Surgical and medical device manufacturers have a cooperative relationship with clinicians. When evaluating published works, one should assess the integrity and academic credentials of the authors, who serve as putative experts. A relationship with a relevant manufacturer may increase the potential risk for bias in relevant studies. Objective: To characterize the association of industrial payments by device manufacturers, self-declared conflict of interest (COI), and relevance of publications among physicians receiving the highest compensation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based bibliometric analysis identified 10 surgical and medical device manufacturing companies and the 10 physicians receiving the highest compensation from each company using the 2015 Open Payments Database (OPD) general payments data. For each of the 100 physicians, the total amount of general payments, number of payments, institution type, and academic rank were recorded. Royalty or license payments were excluded. A search of PubMed identified articles published by each physician from January 1 through December 31, 2016, and their associated COI declaration. Scopus was used to identify bibliometric data reported as the h index (number of papers by a researcher with at least h citations each). Main Outcomes and Measures: Discrepancy between self-declared COI and industry payments. Results: The 100 physicians included in the sample population (88% men) were paid a total of $12 446 969, with a median payment of $95 993. Fifty physicians (50.0%) were faculty at academic institutions. The mean (SD) h index was 18 (18; range, 0-75) for the authors. In 2016, 412 articles were published by these physicians, with a mean (SD) of 4 (6) publications (range, 0-25) and median of 1 (36 physicians had no publications). Of these articles, 225 (54.6%) were relevant to the general payments received by the authors. Only in 84 of the 225 relevant publications (37.3%) was the potential COI declared by the authors. Conclusions and Relevance: A high level of inconsistency was found between self-declared COI and the OPD among the physicians receiving the highest industry payments. Therefore, a policy of full disclosure for all publications, regardless of relevance, is proposed. No statistically significant association was demonstrated between academic rank or productivity and industrial payments.
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.