Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32300891›Full record

ReviewNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2020

Conflicts of interest and Scientific Societies.

Maddalena Gasparini, Daniela Tarquini, Eugenio Pucci, Francesco Alberti, Roberto D'Alessandro, Maura Marogna, Simone Veronese, Corinna Porteri, Bioethics and Palliative Care Study Group of the Italian Neurological Society

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Science, conflicts of interest and ethics.Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes
    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

9 authors.

Maddalena GaspariniGdS Bioetica e Cure Palliative, Milan, Italy.
Daniela TarquiniGdS Bioetica e Cure Palliative, Rome, Italy.
Eugenio PucciUOC Neurologia, AV4-ASUR, Fermo, Marche, Italy.
Francesco AlbertiGdS Bioetica e Cure Palliative, Sanremo, IM, Italy.
Roberto D'AlessandroServizio di Epidemiologia e Biostatistica, Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Maura MarognaSC Neurologia, Ospedale Villa Scassi ASL3, Genoa, Italy.
Simone VeroneseDepartment of Palliative Care and Research, Fondazione FARO, Torino, Italy.
Corinna PorteriBioethics Unit, IRCCS Istituto Centro San Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli, via Pilastroni 4, 25125, Brescia, Italy. cporteri@fatebenefratelli.eu.
Bioethics and Palliative Care Study Group of the Italian Neurological Society

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to bring attention to the complex issue of conflicts of interest (COIs) from the point of view of Scientific Societies and their responsibility in managing secondary interests possibly undermining their activities such as improvement of professional quality, research promotion, and development of guidelines. The first publication on the issue of COIs dates back to more than a century, but only in the last decades the related ethical and legal problems have received public and professional attention. The growing role of industry in biomedical research, the significant decrease in public contributions to health, care, training, and research, and the involvement of physicians in industry-funded research have obliged to study how to identify and manage COIs. The Bioethics and Palliative Care Study Group of the Italian Neurological Society addressed the issue with a specific focus on Scientific Societies that, in our opinion, should also set an example for individual practice, raising awareness among their associates on COIs and implementing strategies for their identification and management. The paper is focused on the nature of the COI, why and how it could be managed, which policies can be implemented, and which kind of action should be considered by Scientific Societies. We emphasize the role of Scientific Societies in fostering knowledge and awareness of conflicts of interest through training and continuing education.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchPhysiciansConflict of InterestHumansSocieties, MedicalSocieties, ScientificBiomedical researchConflict of interestEthicsPharmaceutical industryPolicyScientific Society

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.