ReviewNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2020
Conflicts of interest and Scientific Societies.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The importance of science communication and public engagement to professional associations.Anatomical sciences education · 2025Article
- The European nutrition research landscape: diversity and perspectives.European journal of nutrition · 2025Article
- Science, conflicts of interest and ethics.Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de CirurgioesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
32300891What 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.