Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33377904›Full record

Observational studyJAMA oncology2021

Trends in Industry Payments to Medical Oncologists in the United States Since the Inception of the Open Payments Program, 2014 to 2019.

Elizabeth S Tarras, Deborah C Marshall, Kenneth Rosenzweig, Deborah Korenstein, Susan Chimonas

Open access · bronzeAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in JAMA oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Trend in industry payments to infectious disease physicians in the United States: a seven-year analysis of nonresearch payments from the Open Payments Database between 2014 and 2020.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Elizabeth S TarrasNew York University School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Deborah C MarshallDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Kenneth RosenzweigDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Deborah KorensteinMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Susan ChimonasMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USNew York University · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Training Program in Cancer Prevention and Control for Priority PopulationsT32CA225617 · NCI · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI Guy H Montgomery, JUAN P WISNIVESKY · 2018 to 2026
$2.6M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS T32 CA225617
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceGiven the potential for undue influence of industry-physician payments on oncology care, it is important to understand how a national transparency program may be associated with financial interactions between industry and medical oncologists.

objectiveTo identify trends in industry payments to medical oncologists from 2014 to 2019 and determine if the implementation of the Open Payments program is associated with changes in the frequency or value of payments or any shift in the nature of industry-oncologist financial interactions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsThis retrospective, population-based, observational cohort study analyzed Open Payments reports of industry payments made in 2014 to 2019 to a cohort of licensed medical oncologists practicing in the US in 2014, using data from the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System. EXPOSURES: Receipt of an industry payment from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2019. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: General industry payments to medical oncologists, including the proportion receiving payments, total annual value and number of payments, and average annual trends over time, by aggregate value and by nature-of-payment category. Trends over time were analyzed using linear regression and generalized estimating equations.

resultsIn 2014 to 2019, there were 15 585 medical oncologists who received a total of 2.2 million industry payments with a total value of $509 million. The absolute number of oncologists receiving payments decreased from 10 498 in 2014 to 8918 in 2019 (-15.1%). The annual per-physician payment value decreased among those receiving less than $10 000 in aggregate by -3.2% yearly (95% CI, -4.1% to -2.3%; P < .001), but increased for those receiving more than $10 000. Payments increased for consulting (13.7%; 95% CI, 12.4%-15.0%; P < .001) and for entertainment, meals, travel or lodging, and gifts (0.8%; 95% CI, 0.1%-1.5%; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The number of medical oncologists accepting industry payments has decreased; however, high-value industry payments have been consolidated in a relatively small number of medical oncologists accepting higher payment values over time. The nature of payments has shifted toward consulting. These findings highlight the limitations of transparency without accountability.

Indexed as

OncologistsPhysiciansConflict of InterestDrug IndustryHumansIndustryMedical OncologyRetrospective StudiesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID33377904
PMCPMC7774046
OpenAlexW3114970320

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.