SynthesisBritish journal of cancer2022
Interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and the practice, knowledge and beliefs of medical oncologists and clinical haematologists: a systematic review.
Synthesis in British journal of cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A conceptual model of factors potentially influencing prescribing decisions for chronic conditions: an overview of systematic reviews.BMC medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Structural Inequalities in Ambulatory Care: A Scoping Review of Access and Quality and the Neglected Dimension of Patient Safety.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- How often do oncologists receive industry payments from competing companies?The oncologist · 2026Article
- Review
- Increasing the focus on critical appraisal of trials and financial conflict of interest in medical training programs: a perspective from oncology.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Interactions between Australian cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2023Article
- A David and Goliath set-up: a qualitative study of the challenges of ensuring the introduction of cost-effective new cancer medicines in Finland.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNo previous review has assessed the extent and effect of industry interactions on medical oncologists and haematologists specifically.
methodsA systematic review investigated interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and how these might affect the clinical practice, knowledge and beliefs of cancer physicians. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science Core Collection databases were searched from inception to February 2021.
resultsTwenty-nine cross-sectional and two cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. These were classified into three categories of investigation: (1) extent of exposure to industry for cancer physicians as whole (n = 11); (2) financial ties among influential cancer physicians specifically (n = 11) and (3) associations between industry exposure and prescribing (n = 9). Cancer physicians frequently receive payments from or maintain financial ties with industry, at a prevalence of up to 63% in the United States (US) and 70.6% in Japan. Among influential clinicians, 86% of US and 78% of Japanese oncology guidelines authors receive payments. Payments were associated with either a neutral or negative influence on the quality of prescribing practice. Limited evidence suggests oncologists believe education by industry could lead to unconscious bias.
conclusionsThere is substantial evidence of frequent relationships between cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry in a range of high-income countries. More research is needed on clinical implications for patients and better management of these relationships. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO identification number CRD42020143353.
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.