ReviewInternational journal of women's dermatology2019
Conflicts of interest among dermatology textbook authors.
Review in International journal of women's dermatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Conflicts of Interest in "Throwaway" Dermatology Publications: Analysis of the Open Payments Database.JMIR dermatology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConflict of interest as it relates to medical education is a burgeoning topic of concern. Dermatology textbooks are an influential resource for dermatologists. This study evaluates industry payments to authors of major dermatology textbooks.
objectiveThe primary objective of this study is to evaluate whether authors of dermatology textbooks had appreciable conflicts of interest in the form of payments from industry.
methodsThis is a retrospective study in which the authors and editors of eight commonly used general dermatology textbooks were entered into the ProPublica Dollars for Docs database to identify industry payments data from 2016.
resultsThe total compensation for 381 authors in 2016 was $5,892,221. Zero payments were reported for 39.6% of authors. Of the dermatologists, 50%, 66%, 70%, and 81% received less than $100, $500, $1000, and $5000, respectively. The top 10% of dermatologists who collected payments received $5,267,494, which represented 89% of the total payment amount. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited to eight textbooks. Data are only as accurate as reported to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The database does not include information on dermatologists from non-U.S. institutions. Funding for clinical trials and other avenues of support (e.g., lasers, cosmetic instruments, institutional payments) are also not captured in this database.
conclusionA minority of authors of influential dermatology textbooks received the lion's share of payments from industry.
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.