ReviewEuropean journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery2024
Conflicts of interest in clinical practice: lessons learned from cardiovascular medicine.
Review in European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A framework for developing successful academic-industry partnerships for cardiovascular innovations.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Review
- SAVR and TAVI comparison across the globe based on current regional registry evidence - A meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2025Article
- Implant mechanical aortic valves and start anticoagulation and save young patients (<70 years) or 'dogs howl and the caravan will move on'.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2025Article
- Cardiothoracic surgery and white elephants in the room: medical neoliberalism and its consequences for patient care.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 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
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiovascular diseases represent a major burden worldwide, and clinical trials are critical to define treatment improvements. Since various conflicts of interest (COIs) may influence trials at multiple levels, cardiovascular research represents a paradigmatic example to analyze their effects and manage them effectively to re-establish the centrality of evidence-based medicine.Despite the manifest role of industry, COIs may differently affect both sponsored and non-sponsored studies in many ways. COIs influence may start from the research question, data collection and adjudication, up to result reporting, including the spin phenomenon. Outcomes and endpoints (especially composite) choice and definitions also represent potential sources for COIs interference. Since large randomized controlled trials significantly influence international guidelines, thus impacting also clinical practice, their critical assessment for COIs is mandatory. Despite specific protocols aimed to mitigate COI influence, even scientific societies and guideline panels may not be totally free from COIs, negatively affecting their accountability and trustworthiness.Shared rules, awareness of COI mechanisms and transparency with external data access may help promoting evidence-based research and mitigate COIs impact. Managing COIs effectively should preserve public trust in the cardiovascular profession without compromising the positive relationships between investigators 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.