Observational studyBMJ open2018
Conflict of interest disclosure slides at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2016 in Rome: are they displayed long enough to assess their content? A cross-sectional study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transparency and conflicts of interest disclosure at an international periodontology conference.European journal of oral sciences · 2026Article
- Conflicts of interest in electrophysiology and devices presentations.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
- Are conflict of interest declarations appropriate to allow sufficient consideration of potential bias in presentations?Future healthcare journal · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the duration of display of conflict of interest (COI) disclosure slides of presentations at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2016, and to identify factors associated with the duration of display of the disclosure slide.
designCross-sectional observational study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Display duration of the COI disclosure slide and display duration per disclosure.
resultsAnalysis of official video recordings of all oral presentations, viewed on the ESC website. 1673 oral presentations were analysed. In 706 presentations (42.2%), COIs were present on the disclosure slide. The median display duration of the disclosure slide was 2.49 s (minimum value: 0.16 s; IQR 1.47-4.08). In multivariable analysis, time spent on COI disclosures was positively related to the number of COIs (+0.11 s per extra COI), older estimated age of the speaker (+3.92 s for 75-85 years compared with <25 years), verbally commenting on disclosures (up to +8.25 s) and disclosures being of a non-commercial nature (+2.83 s). In addition, speakers from Eastern, Southern and Western Europe, Africa+East Asia and Asia showed their disclosures significantly shorter than the reference group (Northern Europe).
conclusionCOI disclosure slides are often displayed too briefly to reasonably assess their content. Several factors appear to influence the duration of display of the COI disclosure slides, but none do so to the degree that the display duration becomes sufficiently long.
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.