ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2023
Pharmaceutical industry payments and delivery of non-recommended and low value cancer drugs: population based cohort study.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Industry promotion of oncology drugs with accelerated approval that failed confirmatory trials.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- Receipt of Industry Payments and Surgeons' Adoption of Robotic-Assisted Surgery.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Provider Attribution in Medicare: Challenges and Solutions.Health services research · 2026Article
- How often do oncologists receive industry payments from competing companies?The oncologist · 2026Article
- Pharmaceutical marketing and patient trust: How do doctor-targeted campaigns affect patients?PloS one · 2026Article
- Article
- Use of Low-Value Cancer Treatments in Medicare Advantage Versus Traditional Medicare.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2025Article
- Industry marketing payments to physicians and prescription patterns for sacubitril/valsartan in the USA.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2025Article
- Increasing the focus on critical appraisal of trials and financial conflict of interest in medical training programs: a perspective from oncology.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Trends in enforcement of National Comprehensive Cancer Network financial conflict of interest policy.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2024Article
- Article
- Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Oncology: Preliminary Insights From the Global ONCOTRUST-1 Cross-Sectional Study.JCO global oncology · 2024Article
- Trends in financial payments from industry to US cancer centers, 2014-2021.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2024Article
- Costs to Medicare of Nonrecommended Bone-Modifying Agent Use for Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.JCO oncology practice · 2024Article
- Cross-sectional analysis of financial relationships between board certified allergists and the pharmaceutical industry in Japan.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Revisiting Alma Ata: A Blueprint for Cancer Care.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo estimate the association between oncologists' receipt of payments from the pharmaceutical industry and delivery of non-recommended or low value interventions among their patients.
designCohort study.
settingFee-for-service Medicare claims.
participantsMedicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of incident cancer (new occurrence of a cancer diagnosis code in proximity to claims for cancer treatment, and no such diagnosis codes during a ≥1 year washout period) during 2014-19, who met additional requirements identifying them as at risk for one of four non-recommended or low value interventions: denosumab for castration sensitive prostate cancer, granulocyte colony stimulating factors (GCSF) for patients at low risk for neutropenic fever, nab-paclitaxel for cancers with no evidence of superiority over paclitaxel, and a branded drug in settings where a generic or biosimilar version was available.
main outcome measuresReceipt of the non-recommended or low value drug for which the patient was at risk. The primary association of interest was the assigned oncologist's receipt of any general payments from the manufacturer of the corresponding non-recommended or low value drug (measured in Open Payments) within 365 days before the patient's index cancer date. The two modeling approaches used were general linear model controlling for patients' characteristics and calendar year, and general linear model with physician level indicator variables.
resultsOncologists were in receipt of industry payments for 2962 of 9799 patients (30.2%) at risk for non-recommended denosumab (median $63), 76 747 of 271 485 patients (28.3%) at risk for GCSF (median $60); 18 491 of 86 394 patients (21.4%) at risk for nab-paclitaxel (median $89), and 4170 of 13 386 patients (31.2%) at risk for branded drugs (median $156). The unadjusted proportion of patients who received non-recommended denosumab was 31.4% for those whose oncologist had not received payment and 49.5% for those whose oncologist had (prevalence difference 18.0%); the corresponding values for GCSF were 26.6%
conclusionsWithin some clinical scenarios, industry payments to physicians are associated with non-recommended and low value drugs. These findings raise quality of care concerns about the financial relationships between physicians and industry.
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.