Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41790718›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Changes in U.S. medical school conflict of interest policies from 2014 to 2023.

Shamik Bhat, Devika A Shenoy, Magda Wojtara, Alissa Kainrath, Oak Sonfist, Jantzen Faulkner, Brianna Wang, Linnea Wilson, Timothy S Anderson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. 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.

Shamik BhatSchool of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9980-226X
Devika A ShenoySchool of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Magda WojtaraDavid Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
Alissa KainrathChicago Medical School, Rosalind Franklin University, North Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
Oak SonfistPacific Northwest University of Health Sciences, Yakima, Washington, United States of America.
Jantzen FaulknerCenter for Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7136-6331
Brianna WangDivision of General Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Linnea WilsonDivision of General Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Timothy S AndersonDivision of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConcerns about the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on medical education, ranging from education of students to professional development, have led professional societies to recommend regulation of interactions between industry and medical schools. The objective of this study was to evaluate conflict of interest (COI) policies at medical schools in 2023 compared to 2014.

methodsThis study used a cross-sectional design to evaluate the COI policies at the top 30 medical schools identified by US News and World Report rankings. The authors collected policies by survey and review of public websites, and assessed their quality across 15 domains informed by guidelines published by leading national organizations and previous PharmFree Scorecards. Each domain was graded on a 3-level scale derived from professional organization guidelines, which when totaled corresponded to the following letter grades: an "A" (score 38-45), "B" (32-37), "C" (25-31), and "I/F" (< 25). This study assessed industry payments to school leadership using the 2023 Open Payments database.

resultsEleven of thirty medical schools submitted COI policies, and the remainder were analyzed based on publicly available information. No school received an "A," 22 (73.3%) schools received a "B", 6 (20.0%) schools received a "C", and 2 (6.7%) schools received an "I/F". Most schools had model policies around COI enforcement (29/30, 96.7%), gift acceptance (25/30, 83.3%), and ghostwriting (24/30, 80.0%). No schools had model policies in limiting direct faculty payments. When comparing 2014 and 2023 Scorecards over the shared 14 domains, 14 (46.7%) schools had a decrease in score, 11 (36.7%) schools had an increase, and 5 (16.7%) schools had no change. Faculty at every school accepted industry payments, including 20 (16.7%) deans and 52 (19.3%) of clerkship directors.

conclusionsMedical school COI policies remain less stringent than consensus recommendations; thus, renewed attention to policies and implementation is needed to ensure bias-free medical education.

Indexed as

Conflict of InterestSchools, MedicalCross-Sectional StudiesDrug IndustryHumansUnited States

Identifiers

PMID41790718
PMCPMC12965551

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.