Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31847854›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2019

When patient advocacy organizations meet industry: a novel approach to dealing with financial conflicts of interest.

Orna Ehrlich, Laura Wingate, Caren Heller, Inmaculada de Melo-Martin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Orna EhrlichCrohn's & Colitis Foundation, New York, NY, USA.
Laura WingateCrohn's & Colitis Foundation, New York, NY, USA.
Caren HellerCrohn's & Colitis Foundation, New York, NY, USA.
Inmaculada de Melo-MartinDivision of Medical Ethics, Weill Cornell Medicine, 407 E.61st St., RR-212, New York, NY, 10065, USA. imd2001@med.cornell.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-8656-8497

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMuch like academic-industry partnerships, industry financial support of patient advocacy organizations (PAOs) has become very common in recent years. While financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) between PAOs and industry have received more attention in recent years, robust efforts to mitigate these conflicts are still limited. MAIN BODY: The authors outline the possible benefits and ethical concerns that can result from financial interactions between biomedical companies and PAOs. They argue that the use of novel strategies, such as the creation of a standing ethics committee, could be helpful in managing FCOIs and ensuring the warranted trust of PAO's constituents. Although ethics committees to address FCOIs are common in the academic context, its use by PAOs is still limited. The authors conclude by describing the process of development and implementation of such an ethics committee at the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation.

conclusionsWhile collaborations with industry can result in conflicts of interest, PAOs can develop strategies to address those conflicts. One such strategy is the creation of a standing independent ethics committee to guide PAOs on new and/or existing programs and protocols as they pertain to their industry relationships.

Indexed as

Conflict of InterestEthics Committees, ResearchFoundationsPatient AdvocacyClinical Trials as TopicDrug IndustryFinancial SupportOrganizational Case StudiesEthicsEthics committeeFCOIFinancial conflicts of interestPAOPatient advocacy organization

Identifiers

PMID31847854
PMCPMC6918599

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.