ArticleCancer2019
Undisclosed financial conflicts of interest among authors of American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guidelines.
Article in Cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Conflicts of interest in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: associations with recommendations.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- A cross-sectional review of policies on conflicts of interest and funding in the development manuals of practice guidelines.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2025Article
- Reporting Conflicts of Interest and Funding in Health Care Guidelines: The RIGHT-COI&F Checklist.Annals of internal medicine · 2024Article
- Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Oncology: Preliminary Insights From the Global ONCOTRUST-1 Cross-Sectional Study.JCO global oncology · 2024Article
- Conflicts of Interest Among Cardiology Clinical Practice Guideline Authors in Japan.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Article
- Cross-sectional analysis of pharmaceutical payments to Japanese board-certified gastroenterologists between 2016 and 2019.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Article
- Financial conflicts of interest among US physician authors of 2020 clinical practice guidelines: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Pharmaceutical industry payments to NHS trusts in England: A four-year analysis of the Disclosure UK database.PloS one · 2023Article
- Developing the RIGHT-COI&F extension for the reporting conflicts of interest and funding in practice guidelines: study protocol.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Conflicts of Interest among Participants of the Japanese Nephrology Clinical Practice Guideline.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2022Article
- A Ray of Sunshine: Transparency in Physician-Industry Relationships Is Not Enough.Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Article
- An exploration of how developers use qualitative evidence: content analysis and critical appraisal of guidelines.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Real transparency in medicine: Time to act.Cancer · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are crucial to the practice of evidence-based medicine. Declared author financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) are common in CPGs and have been associated with endorsement of treatment. Less is known about undeclared FCOIs.
methodsThe American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) website was searched to identify all CPGs for systemic therapy published between August 2013 and June 2018. Data on self-reported author FCOIs and funding sources were extracted. The Open Payments database was then searched to identify compensation to CPG authors. Concordance between declared and undeclared but verified FCOIs was assessed with Cohen's κ.
resultsFor 26 CPGs, 314 nonduplicate authors were identified; 184 of these authors (59%) disclosed FCOIs. Among the remaining 130 authors, data in Open Payments were unavailable for 71 authors (non-US residents or authors affiliated with a nonprofit organization). Among the 59 authors who declared no FCOIs and for whom Open Payments data were available, 55 (93%) had received payment from industry. The κ value for agreement between disclosed and verified FCOIs was 0.092. Among the 243 authors with FCOIs verifiable via Open Payments, 239 (98%) received payment from industry. Thirty-four authors (62%) received more than $1000 in nonresearch funding, and 19 (35%) received more than $5000. Among the 52 first and last authors, 44 (85%) received payment from industry; 14 of these payments (32%) were not declared.
conclusionsFCOIs among authors of ASCO CPGs are common and are not disclosed by a substantial proportion of authors with Open Payments data. Improved transparency of FCOIs should become standard practice among CPG authors. Professional societies and journal editors need to create a mechanism to verify self-reported FCOIs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31355923What 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.