ArticleNeurology2021
Financial Conflicts of Interest of United States-Based Authors in Neurology Journals: Cross-Sectional Study Using the Open Payments Database.
Article in Neurology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Ethics Along the Continuum of Research Involving Persons with Disorders of Consciousness.Neurocritical care · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo detail the scope, nature, and disclosure of financial conflicts of interest (COI) between the pharmaceutical and medical device industries (Industry) and authors in high-impact clinical neurology journals.
methodsUsing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database (OPD), we retrieved information on payments from Industry to 2,000 authors from randomly selected 2016 articles in 5 journals. We categorized payments by type (research, general, and associated research/institutional), sponsoring entity, and year (from 2013 to 2016). Each author's self-disclosures were compared to OPD-listed Industry relationships to measure discordance. Payments were manually reviewed to identify those from manufacturers of products that were directly tested or discussed in the article. We also quantified the prevalence and value of these nondisclosed, relevant COI.
resultsTwo hundred authors from 158 articles had at least 1 OPD payment. Median/mean annual payments per author were $4,229/$19,586 (general); $1,702/$5,966 (research); and $67,512/$362,102 (associated research). Most neurologists received <$1,000/y (74.6%, 93.0%, and 79.5% for general, research, and associated research, respectively), but a sizeable minority (>10% of authors) received more than $10,000 per year, and several received over $1 million. Of 3,013 payments deemed directly relevant to the article, 50.9% were not self-disclosed by the authors, totaling $5,782,197 ($1,665,603 general; $25,532 research; $4,091,062 associated research).
conclusionIndustry-related financial relationships are prevalent among United States-based physicians publishing in major neurology journals, and incomplete self-disclosure is common. As a profession, academic and other neurologists must work to establish firm rules to ensure and manage disclosure of financial COI.
Indexed as
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.