Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37843861›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Industry Payments Received by Residents During Training.

Sean O Hogan, Kenji Yamazaki, Yuezhou Jing, Bruce J Trock, Misop Han, Eric Holmboe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sean O HoganAccreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, Chicago, Illinois.
Kenji YamazakiAccreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, Chicago, Illinois.
Yuezhou JingJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Bruce J TrockJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Misop HanJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Eric HolmboeAccreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, Chicago, Illinois.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Those responsible for medical education-specialties, sponsoring institutions, and program directors (PD)-are independently associated with the professional identity formation of the trainees with respect to potential conflicts of interest. Objective: To identify the relative degree to which factors in the training environment are associated with resident acceptance of payments from pharmaceutical and medical device companies. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional, retrospective study of residents enrolled in the 3 largest primary-care specialties (internal medicine [IM], family medicine [FM], obstetrics and gynecology [OBGYN]) and 3 largest surgical disciplines (general surgery [GS], orthopedic surgery, and urology) during academic year 2020 to 2021. All analyses were conducted January through August 2023. Exposures: Specialty, sponsoring institutions' ownership (nonprofit, for-profit, federal government, local government, or state government), and the number of payments PDs accepted. Main outcomes and measures: Modified Poisson regression assessed the relative risk of ownership, specialty, and PD behavior on residents' acceptance of industry payments as recorded in the Open Payments Program (OPP) database. Results: In total, there were 124 715 residents in all training programs during 2020 to 2021, 12% of whom received payments totaling $6.4 million. There were 65 992 residents in training during 2020 to 2021 in the 6 specialties evaluated in this study, with 4438 in orthopedics, 1779 in urology, 9177 in GS, 5819 in OBGYN, 14 493 in FM, and 30 286 in IM. OPP records $3.9 million in payments to the 8750 residents (13.4%) who received at least 1 industry payment. The record of all payments to residents in OPP totals $6.4 million. Compared with residents in federal sponsoring institutions, those affiliated with for-profit institutions were 3.50 (95% CI, 2.32-5.28) times more likely to accept industry payments, while those affiliated with nonprofit organizations were 2.00 (95% CI, 1.36-2.93) times more likely to accept payments. Compared with IM, residents in each of the following specialties have an elevated risk of accepting payments: orthopedics, 3.21 (95% CI, 2.73-3.77) times; urology, 2.95 (95% CI, 2.44-3.56) times; GS, 1.21 (95% CI, 1.00-1.45) times; OBGYN, 1.30 (95% CI, 1.05-1.62) times. The difference in the risk of accepting a payment between FM and IM residents was not statistically significant. The number of payments PDs accepted slightly elevated the risk of residents to accept a payment by 1.01 (95% CI, 1.01-1.01). Conclusions and relevance: In this cross-sectional, retrospective study, receipt of industry payments by residents was associated with specialty, institutional control, and PD behavior.

Indexed as

GynecologyObstetricsCross-Sectional StudiesHumansIndustryRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID37843861
PMCPMC10580108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.