Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31388810›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2020

Disclosure at #SAGES2018: An analysis of physician-industry relationships of invited speakers at the 2018 SAGES national meeting.

Alex W Lois, Anne P Ehlers, Jennifer Minneman, Jin Sol Oh, Saurabh Khandelwal, Andrew S Wright

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Hernia Societies - Are they having vested interest?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Alex W LoisDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8605-4226
Anne P EhlersDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Jennifer MinnemanDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Jin Sol OhDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Saurabh KhandelwalDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Andrew S WrightDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA. awright2@uw.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFinancial conflicts of interest (COI) have been shown to affect the interpretation of scientific findings. Publications with unreported COI tend to be more favorable to industry. Since 2014 industry payments to United States (US) physicians are publicly reported in the Open Payments Database (OPD). Several studies show high levels of unreported COI in medical literature; however, there is no research examining COI reporting at surgical conferences. We hypothesized that compliance with the COI disclosure requirement would be high at the 2018 SAGES meeting. However, we expected to find significant discrepancy between speaker-reported and OPD-reported COI. A secondary aim was to characterize the amount, source, and variation in industry payments to invited speakers.

methodsWe reviewed all available presentations from SAGES 2018 as recorded and publicly available on YouTube™ for the presence of COI disclosure and the disclosed industry relationships. For US physicians we searched the OPD and recorded all industry payments > $500. We compared the self-disclosed COI for each speaker with OPD records. Presentation topics were divided into ten groups to determine which topics received the most funding.

resultsOf the 526 invited presentations, 479 (91%) videos were available. Disclosures were reported by 414 presenters (86.4%). There were 420 unique presenters of which 315 were listed in the OPD. Speaker-reported disclosures were fully concordant with the OPD in 38.3% (121/315) of cases with 39% (123/315) under-reporting disclosures. Of presenters listed in OPD, the median payment was $992 ($0-$374,502) with a total of $6,389,097 paid in 2017. SAGES speakers failed to disclose $2,049,535 worth of industry payments with an average undisclosed payment of $16,662.88 (± $40,733.19). The largest financial contributor was Intuitive Surgical with $1,981,169 paid. Among topics, robotics and hernia received the most funding with $2,593,925 (40.6%) and $2,591,671 (40.5%) paid, respectively.

conclusionsOverall compliance with SAGES disclosure rules is high. There remains a discrepancy between speaker- and industry-reported disclosures, including a number of undisclosed payments, some of which are substantial. Adjustments to disclosure rules to include the relative amount of compensation may be warranted.

Indexed as

PhysiciansCongresses as TopicHumansUnited StatesCOIConflicts of interestOPDOpen payments database

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.