Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39569482›Full record

ArticleHealth promotion international2024

Conflicts of interest in submissions and testimonies to an Australian parliamentary inquiry on menopause.

Melanie Randle, Barbara Mintzes, Simone McCarthy, Hannah Pitt, Samantha Thomas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health promotion international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Melanie RandleFaculty of Business and Law, School of Business, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9129-1701
Barbara MintzesFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Pharmacy and Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Simone McCarthyFaculty of Health, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2671-3511
Hannah PittFaculty of Health, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4259-6186
Samantha ThomasFaculty of Health, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1427-7775

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conflicts of interest (COIs) have the potential to create bias in research, policy and practice. Although disclosure cannot fully protect individuals and public policy from vested interests, it is an important step to support trust in scientific and public discourse, and transparency in decision-making. However, COIs are often unreported, underreported or difficult to identify. This study aimed to assess the extent to which COIs are voluntarily declared by those who make submissions to government inquiries relating to health, focusing on the 2024 Australian Senate inquiry into perimenopause and menopause. There was no guidance or formal requirement to provide COI declarations in written submissions to the inquiry. However, a statement about COI declarations was given by the Chair of the inquiry at the start of public hearings in which verbal testimony was given. All 284 written submissions and 163 verbal testimonies were reviewed to identify the number and nature of COIs declared. Only 1% of written submissions and 6% of verbal testimonies provided a COI statement. The amount and nature of information provided in COI declarations varied widely. To ensure transparency in decisions made as a result of public inquiries, governments should require that COIs be declared for all submissions. An explicit standardized guide is needed, with clear parameters about the type of detail needed for these declarations. Processes for dealing with COIs should also be clear in any reports or recommendations that are made from the evidence presented at such inquiries.

Indexed as

Conflict of InterestDisclosureMenopauseAustraliaFemaleHumanscommercial determinants of healthconflicts of interestmenopausepolitical determinants of healthpublic healthwomen’s health

Identifiers

PMID39569482
PMCPMC11579595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.