ArticleJAMA network open2019
Evaluation of Sex Distribution of Industry Payments Among Radiation Oncologists.
Article in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gender disparities in academic radiation oncology research: A narrative review.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2027Review
- The Impact of Gender, Rank, and Race on Industry Payments in Pediatric and Adult Gastroenterology.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Gender and geographic disparities among DSM-5-TR authors in relation to financial conflicts of interest and industry payments: cross-sectional analysis.BMJ mental health · 2025Article
- Relationship Between Industry Funding and Otologists.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
- Analysis of the Distribution of Private Research Funding to Sports Medicine Orthopaedic Surgeons.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- The Association of Subspecialty and Sex with Industry Payments to Internal Medicine Physicians Who Recently Completed Training.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Observational
- Pharmaceutical payments to Japanese board-certified dermatologists: a 4-year retrospective analysis of personal payments from pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Pharmaceutical industry payments to NHS trusts in England: A four-year analysis of the Disclosure UK database.PloS one · 2023Article
- Examination of Potential Industry Conflicts of Interest and Disclosures by Contributors to Online Medical Resource Databases.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Representation of Women in Ophthalmology Receiving Private Industry Funding 2015-2018.American journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Trends in Women's Leadership of Oncology Clinical Trials.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Increasing Financial Payments From Industry to Medical Oncologists in the United States, 2014-2017.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2021Article
- Female dermatology journal editors accepting pharmaceutical payments: An analysis of the Open Payments database, 2013 to 2018.International journal of women's dermatology · 2021Article
- Article
- Gender Disparity in Industry Relationships With Academic Interventional Radiology Physicians.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Industry relationships are an important measure of professional advancement; however, the association between physician sex and industry payments in radiation oncology has not been described. Objective: To update the trends in the sex distribution of industry payments in radiation oncology. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted between July 1, 2018, and August 31, 2018. It used the publicly available Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments program and CMS Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File databases to obtain 2016 industry payment data for US radiation oncologists who reported receiving industry funding in that year (n = 3052). Total monetary value, number of payments, and median payment amounts were determined for each sex in the following categories: research, consulting, honoraria, industry grants, royalty or license, and services other than consulting. Main Outcomes and Measures: Industry payment amounts among 3052 radiation oncologists who reported receiving payments in 2016; association of median payment with the types of payment by sex. Results: Of the total 4483 radiation oncologists who practiced in 2016, 1164 (25.9%) were female and 3319 (74.0%) were male. Industry payments were distributed among 3052 radiation oncologists (68.1%), of whom 715 (23.4%) were female and 2337 (76.6%) were male. The proportion of female radiation oncologists who received at least 1 industry payment was 61.4% (715 of 1164), whereas the proportion of their male counterparts was 70.4% (2337 of 3319). Across all payment types, female radiation oncologists received a smaller percentage of total industry funding than the percentage of female physicians represented in each category. The median payment value was smaller for female radiation oncologists in consulting (-$1000; 95% CI, -$1966.67 to $100.63; P = .005) and honoraria (-$500; 95% CI, -$1071.43 to $0; P = .007). This trend was also observed in research payments, but was not statistically significant (-$135.02; 95% CI, -$476.93 to $6.88; P = .08). Of the $1 347 509 royalty or license payments made to 72 physicians, none was for female radiation oncologists. Conclusions and Relevance: Distribution of industry payments appears to show sex disparity in industry relationships among radiation oncologists; this observation warrants further investigation to determine the underlying reasons and provide avenues for increased parity.
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.