ArticleJAMA network open2022
Examination of Potential Industry Conflicts of Interest and Disclosures by Contributors to Online Medical Resource Databases.
Article in JAMA network open, 2022. 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.
- Gender and geographic disparities among DSM-5-TR authors in relation to financial conflicts of interest and industry payments: cross-sectional analysis.BMJ mental health · 2025Article
- Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Oncology: Preliminary Insights From the Global ONCOTRUST-1 Cross-Sectional Study.JCO global oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Physicians contribute content to online databases, and other health care professionals use these websites to support their decision-making. Financial conflicts of interest (COI) have the potential to adversely impact evidence-based patient care. Objectives: To quantify the potential COI among content contributors to 2 popular point-of-care medical resources, UpToDate and DynaMed, overall and by gender, and to compare self-reported and industry-mandated disclosures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study compiled an initial list of contributors for each website using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Leading Causes of Death. The top 50 causes were used to identify relevant articles from each database from November 30 to December 7, 2020. The authors and editors of those articles were investigated. Data were analyzed from January 2021 to March 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported contributor disclosure status was compared with financial remuneration as reported in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments (OP) database from 2013 to 2018. Results: A total of 179 point-of-care database authors and editors were assessed. Combined, they received $77.7 million, with a mean of $583 218 (95% CI, $0-$4 679 651) and median (range) of $29 073 ($10-$17 517 315) each. Most of the compensation ($68.1 million [87.6%]) went to UpToDate contributors. Of 128 UpToDate contributors, 76 (59.4%) reported nothing to disclose, and among these, 44 contributors (57.9%) had a record of receiving a financial payment on OP. Women UpToDate contributors received 2.5% of the total compensation paid from industry. The top 10 UpToDate contributors who received the most financial remuneration earned $56.1 million combined, were all men, and only 1 had a nothing-to-disclose status. Of 51 DynaMed contributors, 42 (82.4%) reported nothing to disclose, and among these, 35 contributors (83.3%) had an OP entry (mean, $79 820; 95% CI, $0-$400 774; median [range], $1403 [$26-$630 424]). Among the top 10 DynaMed contributors, 8 (80.0%) were men. Six of the top 10 DynaMed contributors reported nothing to disclose yet had an OP entry. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that contributors to point-of-care databases were the recipients of nearly $78 million from pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers, and these payments were often not disclosed in association with contributed content. Although these findings do not necessarily suggest ethical lapses among the physicians studied, point-of-care resource websites, like UpToDate and DynaMed, should consider implementing more stringent COI policies and employ an unbiased team to verify self-reported disclosure statuses among content contributors against OP reports.
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.