ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2024
Discrepancies in Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures Among Physicians Receiving Compensation for Monoclonal Antibody Drugs.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Discrepancies in Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures Among Physicians Receiving Compensation for Monoclonal Antibody Drugs: Correspondence.Journal of general internal medicine · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMonoclonal antibody drugs are widely used, highly marketed, expensive compounds. Relationships between these drug manufacturers and physicians may increase the potential for bias in relevant studies.
objectiveThe aim of this study is to determine the rate of disclosures among physicians receiving compensations for monoclonal antibody drugs (MAbDs).
designThis is a retrospective, population-based, cross-sectional study.
participantsThe 50 physicians who received the highest financial compensation for selected MAbDs from 2016 to 2020 were included. MAIN MEASURES: Payment data were obtained from the Open Payments Database, bibliometric data were obtained from SCOPUS, and disclosure data were obtained from relevant publications found in PubMed. The primary outcome was rate of disclosure concordance between self-declared conflict-of-interest and industry-reported payments documented in the Open Payments Database. KEY
resultsOf the 50 physicians examined, 74% (N = 37) had publications examined. A cumulative 6170 payments totaling $18,484,228 were analyzed. A total of 418 relevant papers were reviewed. The rate of full disclosure (all relevant financial relationships disclosed) was 39.5%, partial disclosure (some but not all financial relationships disclosed) was 28.0%, and no disclosure was 26.3%. 6.2% did not require disclosure. Publications authored by dermatologists had the highest rate of full disclosure at 49.3%. There was no association between h-index and disclosure rate. Practice guidelines had the highest rate of full disclosure at 69.2% while basic science papers had the lowest (0%). Lastly, substantial variations in specific journal disclosure policies were found.
conclusionsSubstantial inconsistencies were found between self-reported disclosures and the Open Payments Database among physicians receiving high compensation for MAbDs. A policy of full disclosure for all publications should be adopted.
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.