ReviewFrontiers in medicine2023
Rebalancing commercial and public interests in prioritizing biomedical, social and environmental aspects of health through defining and managing conflicts of interest.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The potential of new nicotine and tobacco products as tools for people who smoke to quit combustible cigarettes - a systematic review of common practices and guidance towards a robust study protocol to measure cessation efficacy.Harm reduction journal · 2024Pooled it
- Shifting power in global health research: a checklist for research funders.Global health action · 2026Article
- Conflicts of interest as a barrier to the development of health technology assessment in Iran: a qualitative study.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2026Article
- Evaluating conflict-of-interest governance among Canadian medical societies using a novel assessment tool: A cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2026Article
- New perspectives from evidence to action - patient-centered evidence transformation in evidence-based nursing: a narrative review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Pharmaceutical access in Brazil: challenges and opportunities.Globalization and health · 2025Review
- The Complex Interaction Between Sleep-Related Information, Misinformation, and Sleep Health: Call for Comprehensive Research on Sleep Infodemiology and Infoveillance.JMIR infodemiology · 2024Article
- Review
- There is no place for Tobacco Industry sponsorship in Continuing Professional Development.Journal of the colleges of medicine of South Africa · 2024Article
- Promoting opioids, a story about how to influence medical science and opinions.Frontiers in medicine · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biomedical research is intended to benefit human beings and their health. Toward that end, scientific norms involve examining and criticizing the work of others and prioritizing questions that should be studied. Yet, in areas of health research where industry is active, it has often utilized well-honed strategies aimed at evading scientific standards and at dominating the research agenda, largely through its financial support and lack of transparency of its research practices. These tactics have now been documented to uniformly support industry products. Commercial entities are aided in this pursuit by public policy that has significantly embedded commercial interests and agendas into federal research funding and infrastructure. Therefore, to understand the resulting landscape and its effect on priority in health research agendas, traditional definitions of individual conflicts of interest (COI) and the less well developed institutional COI must be supplemented by a new construct of structural COI, largely operating as intellectual monopolies, in support of industry. These arrangements often result in financial and reputational resources that assure dominance of commercial priorities in research agendas, crowding out any other interests and ignoring justified returns to the public from investment of its tax dollars. There is no sustained attention to mechanisms by which public interests can be heard, normative issues raised, and then balanced with commercial interests which are transparently reported. Focus on research supporting approval of commercial products ignores social and environmental determinants of health. Commercial bias can invalidate regulatory research protections through obscuring valid risk-benefit ratios considered by IRBs.
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.