Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32461201›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2020

Financial ties between leaders of influential US professional medical associations and industry: cross sectional study.

Ray Moynihan, Loai Albarqouni, Conrad Nangla, Adam G Dunn, Joel Lexchin, Lisa Bero

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Navigating the Prescription Drug Information System.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026
    Review
  3. Doctors' Conflict-of-Interest; What it Looks Like and What to do About it.International journal of social determinants of health and health services · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ray MoynihanInstitute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD, 4229, Australia raymoynihan@bond.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-9283-742X
Loai AlbarqouniInstitute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD, 4229, Australia.
Conrad NanglaInstitute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD, 4229, Australia.
Adam G DunnDiscipline of Biomedical Informatics and Digital Health, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Joel LexchinSchool of Health Policy and Management, York University, Toronto, Canada.
Lisa BeroCharles Perkins Centre and School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the nature and extent of financial relationships between leaders of influential professional medical associations in the United States and pharmaceutical and device companies.

designCross sectional study.

settingProfessional associations for the 10 costliest disease areas in the US according to the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Financial data for association leadership, 2017-19, were obtained from the Open Payments database. POPULATION: 328 leaders, such as board members, of 10 professional medical associations: American College of Cardiology, Orthopaedic Trauma Association, American Psychiatric Association, Endocrine Society, American College of Rheumatology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Thoracic Society, North American Spine Society, Infectious Diseases Society of America, and American College of Physicians.

main outcome measuresProportion of leaders with financial ties to industry in the year of leadership, the four years before and the year after board membership, and the nature and extent of these financial relationships.

results235 of 328 leaders (72%) had financial ties to industry. Among 293 leaders who were medical doctors or doctors of osteopathy, 235 (80%) had ties. Total payments for 2017-19 leadership were almost $130m (£103m; €119m), with a median amount for each leader of $31 805 (interquartile range $1157 to $254 272). General payments, including those for consultancy and hospitality, were $24.8m and research payments were $104.6m-predominantly payments to academic institutions with association leaders named as principle investigators. Variation was great among the associations: median amounts varied from $212 for the American Psychiatric Association leaders to $518 000 for the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

conclusionsFinancial relationships between the leaders of influential US professional medical associations and industry are extensive, although with variation among the associations. The quantum of payments raises questions about independence and integrity, adding weight to calls for policy reform.

Indexed as

Conflict of InterestConsultantsCross-Sectional StudiesDrug IndustryEquipment and SuppliesHumansIndustryLeadershipOutcome Assessment, Health CarePhysiciansSocieties, ScientificUnited StatesUnited States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Identifiers

PMID32461201
PMCPMC7251422

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.