ArticleScience and engineering ethics2020
Quantification of Conflicts of Interest in an Online Point-of-Care Clinical Support Website.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Oncology: Preliminary Insights From the Global ONCOTRUST-1 Cross-Sectional Study.JCO global oncology · 2024Article
- Conflicts of Interest Among Infectious Diseases Clinical Practice Guideline Authors and the Pharmaceutical Industry.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Examination of Potential Industry Conflicts of Interest and Disclosures by Contributors to Online Medical Resource Databases.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
- A Quantitative and Narrative Evaluation of Goodman and Gilman's Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Online medical reference websites are utilized by health care providers to enhance their education and decision making. However, these resources may not adequately reveal pharmaceutical-author interactions and their potential conflicts of interest (CoIs). This investigation: (1) evaluates the correspondence of two well-utilized CoI databases: the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments (CMSOP) and ProPublica's Dollars for Docs (PDD) and (2) quantifies CoIs among authors of a publicly available point of care clinical support website which is used to inform evidence-based medicine decisions. Two data sources were used: the hundred most common drugs and the top fifty causes of death. These topics were entered into a freely available database. The authors (N = 139) were then input into CMSOP and PDD and compensation and number of payments were determined for 2013-2015. The subset of highly compensated authors that also reported "Nothing to disclose" were further examined. There was a high degree of similarity between CMSOP and PDD for compensation (R
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.