Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41250737›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

Trends in Research Payments From Industry to Dermatologists.

Craig Cronin, Aleksandra Drmanovic, Zeyad Hammadeh, Aurora J Grutman, Joseph G Cheaib, Zhuo T Su, Bruce J Trock, Gerard F Anderson, Misop Han

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Craig CroninJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
Aleksandra DrmanovicJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
Zeyad HammadehJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
Aurora J GrutmanJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
Joseph G CheaibJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
Zhuo T SuJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
Bruce J TrockJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
Gerard F AndersonDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA.
Misop HanJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe Open Payments Program (OPP) requires manufacturers to report payments to various entities involving physicians, aiming to increase transparency in industry-physician financial relationships. While general payments have been extensively studied, research payments, particularly those to non-covered entities (NCEs), remain poorly studied. Dermatology, a rapidly evolving specialty with significant industry-sponsored research activity, offers an ideal case to examine trends in research payments.

methodsThis was a record-based longitudinal study using research payment data from dermatologists in 2015-2023 in the OPP database. Both direct research payments (payments directly to physicians) and associated research payments (payments to teaching hospitals and NCEs with physician principal investigators (PIs)) were included. Payments were inflation-adjusted to 2023 U.S. dollars using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).

resultsBetween 2015 and 2023, 1,610 dermatologists received a total of $1.44 billion in research payments, with an average of 84% directed to NCEs with a dermatologist PI. Research payments to NCEs with a dermatologist PI declined from $161.0 million in 2015 to $107.6 million in 2023, but the overall trend was not statistically significant (p = 0.27). The top 10 NCE organizations received $179 million, with most being private institutions involved in pharmaceutical clinical trials. Four pharmaceutical companies accounted for nearly half of all research payments.  Conclusion: Most research payments from the industry to dermatologists originated from a small number of pharmaceutical companies and were directed to NCEs, which have minimal reporting requirements. These findings underscore gaps in transparency within the OPP and highlight the need for new disclosure requirements regarding the distribution and use of funds to NCEs.

Indexed as

centers for medicare and medicaid services (cms)dermatologyindustry-sponsored research paymentsindustry-sponsored research payments to dermatologistsnon-covered entitiesopen payments program (opp)physician payments sunshine act (ppsa)

Identifiers

PMID41250737
PMCPMC12620071

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.