ArticleBMJ open2018
Disclosure of payments by pharmaceutical companies to healthcare professionals in the UK: analysis of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry's Disclosure UK database, 2015 and 2016 cohorts.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.
- Doctors' Conflict-of-Interest; What it Looks Like and What to do About it.International journal of social determinants of health and health services · 2026Article
- Pharmaceutical company promotional payments to English general practices: a longitudinal study.BJGP open · 2026Article
- Article
- Review
- Evaluation of non-research payments from pharmaceutical companies to urologists in Japan between 2016 and 2019.International urogynecology journal · 2023Article
- Comparing pharmaceutical company payments in the four UK countries: a cross-sectional and social network analysis.BMJ open · 2023Article
- International comparison of pharmaceutical industry payment disclosures in the UK and Japan: implications for self-regulation, public regulation, and transparency.Globalization and health · 2023Article
- Pharmaceutical industry payments to NHS trusts in England: A four-year analysis of the Disclosure UK database.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- Disclosure of Pharmaceutical Industry Funding of Patient Organisations in Nordic Countries: Can Industry Self-Regulation Deliver on its Transparency Promise?International journal of health services : planning, administration, evaluation · 2022Article
- Awareness and Perceptions among Members of a Japanese Cancer Patient Advocacy Group Concerning the Financial Relationships between the Pharmaceutical Industry and Physicians.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Interaction between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: A scoping review for developing a policy brief.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Review
- Financial Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Systematic Review.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2021Review
- How Do Institutional Conflicts of Interest Between Pharmaceutical Companies and the Healthcare Sector Become Corrupt? A Case Study of Scholarship Donations Between Department of Clinical Anesthesiology, Mie University, and Ono Pharmaceutical in Japan.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- A hidden web of policy influence: The pharmaceutical industry's engagement with UK's All-Party Parliamentary Groups.PloS one · 2021Article
- Drug company payments to General Practices in England: Cross-sectional and social network analysis.PloS one · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo analyse the section of Disclosure UK that pertains to healthcare professionals (HCPs) in order to provide insight into the database's structure and content and suggest ways to improve its transparency. DESIGN AND
participantsCohort study of drug companies and HCPs in the 2015 and 2016 versions of Disclosure UK.
resultsCompanies report transfers of value (ToVs) to named HCPs or, where an HCP declines to consent, in aggregate. Only a limited number of variables describe the recipient HCP and the ToV, precluding refined analyses. In 2015, 107 companies reported 54 910 ToVs worth ₤50 967 728. In 2016, 109 companies reported ToVs but spending decreased by 7.3%. The spending was concentrated: the top 10 spenders reported about 50% of the total value, with consultancy-related payments comprising over 70%, and the rest being costs for events. In 2015, 55.5% (30 478) of ToVs worth ₤24 428 619 (47.9%) were disclosed at the individual HCP level, increasing to 64.5% (32 407) and ₤28 145 091 (59.2%) in 2016. Despite increased individual-level disclosure in 2016, the median number of ToVs reported by each company at the individual level was only 57.7%, with 25% of companies reporting less than 38.6%. We found little agreement (62%-48% in 2015 and 46%-30% in 2016) between HCP consent rates that we calculated based on information in the database and those provided by companies.
conclusionsKey deficiencies in Disclosure UK include: insufficient information on payments and recipients, a relatively low HCP consent rate for individual-level disclosure, differences in consent rates across companies and payment types, and reporting ambiguities or inconsistencies. We employ these findings to develop recommendations for improving transparency, including an easily interpretable consent rate statistic that allows for comparison across years, firms and countries. If deficiencies remain unresolved, the UK should consider introducing legislation requiring mandatory disclosure to allow for adequate tracking of industry 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.