Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36918413›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023

SAGES perspective: professional medical associations, commercial interests, and conflicts of interest.

Phillip Shadduck, Patricia Sylla, Erin Schwarz, Caroline Reinke, Peter Denk, Shelley Ginsberg, Horacio Asbun, Aurora Pryor

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Hernia Societies - Are they having vested interest?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Phillip Shadduck *Duke Regional Hospital & NC Specialty Hospital, Durham, NC, USA. phil9128@aol.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7519-4319
Patricia Sylla *Mount Sinai Hospital, Icahn School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Erin SchwarzBSC Management and Vivacity Consulting, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Caroline ReinkeCarolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA.
Peter DenkLee Health, Fort Myers, FL, USA.
Shelley GinsbergBSC Management, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Horacio AsbunMiami Cancer Institute, Miami, FL, USA.
Aurora PryorLong Island Jewish Medical Center, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, New Hyde Park, NY, USA.
Carolinas Medical Center · USDuke Regional Hospital · USLee Memorial Health System · USLong Island Jewish Medical Center · USMiami Heart Research Institute · USMount Sinai Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProfessional medical associations (PMAs) have an essential role in advancing medical care and health. PMAs promote skills training, clinical standards, and other important educational activities. Most often, PMAs are not-for-profit entities that rely upon funding from industry to help cover the costs of these valuable activities. Equally important, innovation and progress in surgery require physician collaboration with industry throughout the product development process. SAGES has opined that, with appropriate Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure and management processes, PMA educational activities can be both scientifically and ethically sound.

methodsSAGES has developed and implemented comprehensive and stringent processes for managing potential COI within the organization, at the annual meeting, and in developing educational offerings. This document reviews the SAGES COI processes and results 2009-2021.

resultsImplementation of the SAGES COI disclosure and management processes reduced the reported perceived incidence of bias at the annual meeting from 4.4-6.2% (2008-2010) to 1.2-2.2% (2011-2013). Recent comparison of reported disclosures revealed a rise in number of speakers with financial relationships and an increase in reporting of disclosures in presentations without an associated increase in need for conflict resolution by the COI committee. Despite good overall adherence to COI policies, SAGES was recently cited for non-compliance with ACCME standards related to inclusion of faculty with ownership interest. This experience highlighted the potential for discordance in the interpretation of whether disclosures relate to specific CME content. SAGES COI processes have since been updated to reflect the more stringent 2020 ACCME Standards that exclude speakers and planners with ownership interest from any CME activity.

conclusionsThe SAGES experience with disclosure and mitigation of financial relationships highlights the challenges of validating the accuracy of physician disclosures and establishing the relevance of financial relationships to the content of accredited educational activities. SAGES will continue to streamline its COI disclosure process with specific focus on aligning all financial disclosures among the various reporting platforms.

Indexed as

Conflict of InterestPhysiciansDisclosureHumansBiasConflict of interestDisclosureEthicsOpen paymentsProfessional medical association

Identifiers

PMID36918413
OpenAlexW4324136408

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.