Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31494604›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open2019

Pharmaceutical payments to certified oncology specialists in Japan in 2016: a retrospective observational cross-sectional analysis.

Akihiko Ozaki, Hiroaki Saito, Yosuke Onoue, Toyoaki Sawano, Yuki Shimada, Yurie Somekawa, Aritsune Tsuji, Tetsuya Tanimoto

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Akihiko OzakiMedical Governance Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan ozakiakihiko@gmail.com.
Hiroaki SaitoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sendai Kousei Hospital, Sendai, Japan.
Yosuke OnoueCollege of Humanities and Sciences, Nihon University, Tokyo, Japan.
Toyoaki SawanoDepartment of Surgery, Minamisoma Municipal General Hospital, Minamisoma, Japan.
Yuki ShimadaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Minamisoma Municipal General Hospital, Minamisoma, Japan.
Yurie SomekawaMedical Governance Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan.
Aritsune TsujiMedical Governance Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan.
Tetsuya TanimotoMedical Governance Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study investigated payments made by pharmaceutical companies to oncology specialists in Japan, what the payments were for and whether the receipt of such payments contravened any conflict of interest (COI) regulations. DESIGN, SETTING AND

participantsPayment data to physicians, as reported by all pharmaceutical companies belonging to the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, were retrospectively extracted for 2016. Of the named individual recipients of payments, all certified oncologists were identified, using certification data from the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO). The individual specialisations of each of the oncologists was also identified. OUTCOME: Payments to individual cancer specialists and what they were for were identified. Factors associated with receipt of higher value payments and payment flows to specialties were determined. Companies selling oncology drugs with annual sales of ≥5 billion yen (£33.9 million, €40.2 million and $46.0 million) (high revenue-generating drugs) were identified.

resultsIn total, 59 companies made at least one payment to oncologists. Of the 1080 oncology specialists identified, 763 (70.6%) received at least one payment, while 317 received no payment. Of the 763, some 142 (13.1%) receiving at least 1 million yen (£6,800, €8,000 and $9200) accounted for 71.5% of the total. After adjustment of covariates, working for university hospitals and cancer hospitals and male gender were key factors associated with larger monetary payments. Payments preferentially targeted on cancer specialties using high revenue-generating drugs. The JSMO has its own COI policy for its members, but the policy did not mention any specific guidelines for certified oncology specialists.

conclusionFinancial relationships were identified and quantified between pharmaceutical companies and oncology specialists, but the extent and worth varied significantly. Given the frequency and amounts of money involved in such linkages, it would be beneficial for specific COI regulations to be developed and policed for oncologists.

Indexed as

Conflict of InterestDrug IndustryOncologistsRemunerationCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGuidelines as TopicHumansJapanMaleReferral and ConsultationRetrospective StudiesSocieties, MedicalSpeechWritingconflict of interestindustry paymentJapanJapanese Society of Medical Oncologyoncology specialist

Identifiers

PMID31494604
PMCPMC6731803

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.