ReviewJAMA network open2018
Assessment of Pharmaceutical Company and Device Manufacturer Payments to Gastroenterologists and Their Participation in Clinical Practice Guideline Panels.
Review in JAMA network open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Industry payments and auditability of financial conflicts of interest in US gastroenterology and hepatology clinical practice guidelines: a cross-sectional analysis.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Understanding "interests": historical insights for managing conflicts of interest in healthcare and biomedical science.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2025Review
- Industry payments to American Society of Hematology Clinical Practice Guideline authors.Blood advances · 2024Article
- Association of Device Industry Payments, Physician Supply, and Regional Utilization of Orthopedic and Cardiac Procedures.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Cross-sectional analysis of pharmaceutical payments to Japanese board-certified gastroenterologists between 2016 and 2019.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Evaluation of Industry Payments to US Advanced Practice Clinicians in 2021.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- A cross-sectional examination of conflict-of-interest disclosures of physician-authors publishing in high-impact US medical journals.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Financial ties between leaders of influential US professional medical associations and industry: cross sectional study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Article
- Analysis of Pharmaceutical Industry Payments to UK Health Care Organizations in 2015.JAMA network open · 2019Observational
- Undisclosed payments by pharmaceutical manufacturers to authors of inflammatory bowel disease guidelines in the United States.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology AssociationArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Payments from pharmaceutical and device manufacturers to physicians may influence the advice physicians give patients and peers. Objectives: To investigate the nature and amounts of monetary and other benefits that gastroenterologists received and to determine the participation of those receiving benefits in the formulation of clinical practice guidelines. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed information from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database, including all reports about payments that pharmaceutical and device manufacturers gave to adult or pediatric gastroenterologists in 2016. PubMed was used to examine the professional affiliations and publication records of top payment recipients. Panelists of clinical guidelines who also received personal financial rewards listed in the Open Payments database were identified. Main Outcomes and Measures: Payments made to gastroenterologists by pharmaceutical company and device manufacturers. Results: Of 15 497 gastroenterologists, 13 467 (86.9%) received a total of 432 463 payments accounting for a total expenditure of $67 144 862. Direct financial payments for consultations, talks, or other services were made to 2055 physicians and were responsible for 4.2% of payments (18 179 of 432 463), but for 62.7% of total expenditures ($42 086 207 of $67 144 862). Although a significant number of submissions were for food and beverages, they constituted only a small amount of total expenditure. For gastroenterologists treating adult patients, 10 products were linked to 63.8% of payments (11 221 of 17 588) related to direct financial rewards and 37.1% of the total expenditures ($24 892 643 of $67 144 862). Twenty-nine of 36 clinical practice guidelines included panelists who had received honoraria or consultation fees from industry sources, with amounts exceeding $10 000 in 8 of them (22%). Conclusions and Relevance: Most gastroenterologists accept meals or gifts from industry, with 2055 of 15 497 gastroenterologists receiving direct payments and 8 of 36 clinical practice guidelines panelists having received more than $10 000. Considering the known impact of such benefits on prescribing patterns and other professional behaviors, policy makers should consider revising regulations governing interactions with industry and disclosure formats alerting others to their potential biasing impact.
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.