ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2019
Industry Funding Is Correlated With Publication Productivity of US Academic Radiation Oncologists.
Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Academic Influence and Industry Funding in Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections: Coauthorship Network Analysis.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Sex Differences in Academic Productivity Across Academic Ranks and Specialties in Academic Medicine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2021Pooled it
- Relationship Between Industry Funding and Otologists.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
- Academic productivity and industry trends of fellowship-trained U.S. academic rhinologists.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2025Article
- Gender Inequalities in Citations of Articles Published in High-Impact General Medical Journals: a Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Article
- Academic Rhinologists' Online Rating and Perception, Scholarly Productivity, and Industry Payments.American journal of rhinology & allergy · 2021Article
- Effects of institutional policies and characteristics on research productivity at Vietnam science and technology universities.Heliyon · 2021Article
- Downstream funding success of early career researchers for resubmitted versus new applications: A matched cohort.PloS one · 2021Article
- Evaluation of Sex Distribution of Industry Payments Among Radiation Oncologists.JAMA network open · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIndustry payments to physicians are financial conflicts of interest and may influence research findings and medical decisions. We aim to (1) characterize industry payments within radiation oncology; and (2) explore the potential correlation between receiving disclosed industry payments and academic productivity. MATERIALS/
methodsCMS database was used to extract 2015 industry payments. For academic radiation oncologists, research productivity was characterized by h- and m-indices, as well as receipt of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, which is not an industry payment. Logistic regression models were used to determine whether publication metrics (m-index, h-index) and other study characteristics such as gender, PhD status, NIH institution funding status, were associated with the endpoints, research and general payments. Associations between the amount of payments (if any) and publication metrics were further studied using linear regression models.
resultsA total of 22,543 individual payments totaling $25,532,482 to 2,995 radiation oncologists were included. Among the 1,189 academic radiation oncologists, 75% received less than $167; on the other hand, 10 (<1%) individuals received $6,425,728 (51%) of payments. On multiple logistic regression, research payments were significantly associated with the m-index, odds ratio 2.86 (95% confidence interval, 1.84-4.45, p-value <0.0001); as well as with the h-index, odds ratio 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.05, p-value <0.0001). The linear regression model shows that both m-index and h-index were significantly positively associated with the amount of general payments (p-values <0.0001).
conclusionThere is an association between disclosed payment from the industry and increased individual research productivity metrics. Further research to find the cause behind this association is warranted.
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.