ReviewSurgical endoscopy2023
Concordance of financial disclosures among faculty at the 2018-2020 SAGES annual meetings.
Review in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical society committee members disclosure of conflict of interest: show me the money.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Potential conflict of interest of SAGES annual meeting presentations: can we do better?Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Article
- The association between gender and industry payments to minimally invasive surgeons.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFinancial relationships with industry may bias educational content delivered by physicians. SAGES strives to mitigate potential bias, relying on physician self-reporting. Retrospective review of relationships is possible using the Open Payments Database (OPD), a public record of industry-reported payments to US physicians. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the SAGES disclosure process by comparing faculty disclosures to SAGES, faculty disclosures within presentations, and OPD records among speakers at the 2018-2020 SAGES meetings.
methodsWe reviewed all presentations from the SAGES 2018-2020 Annual Meetings. For each invited presentation, all slide-disclosed relationships were recorded. For US physicians, we queried the OPD and recorded relationships ≥ $500 USD in the calendar year prior to presentation. We compared the slide-disclosed relationships with OPD-reported relationships and with those provided to SAGES during the faculty disclosure process. We surveyed a sample of the 2020 annual meeting speakers to analyze potential reasons for discordance.
resultsFrom 2018 to 2020, there were 1,355 invited presentations, of which 1,234 (91%) were available for review. Disclosure slides were present in 1,098 (89%), increasing from 86% in 2018 to 93% in 2020. The proportion of speakers with OPD-reported relationships ≥ $500 increased from 54% in 2018 to 66% in 2020. The total value of OPD relationships decreased from $5.9 million (2018) to $3.3 million (2020) with a concomitant decrease in the proportion with high discordance from 9% in 2018 to 5% in 2020. Among the 2020 speakers with high discordance, the most common explanations for discordance were being unaware of payment or payment outside the 12-month timeframe (55%).
conclusionsDiscordance between financial disclosures reported to SAGES and OPD highlight the need for improvements in the faculty disclosure process. SAGES will continue to streamline this process by incorporating faculty review of their OPD disclosures to ensure all educational programs remain free of commercial bias.
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.