ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026
Medical Device Industry Payments to Healthcare Professionals in Japan: A Descriptive Analysis of Scale, Distribution, and Transparency Based on 2019 Disclosure Data.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFinancial ties between healthcare professionals and the medical-device industry raise conflict-of-interest and transparency concerns; despite Japan's 2012 self-regulatory guidelines, device-related payments receive less scrutiny than pharmaceutical payments globally, including in Japan.
objectiveTo provide the first detailed analysis of honoraria from medical device companies to Japanese physicians in 2019, offering a baseline before the COVID-19 pandemic.
methodsWe retrospectively examined 2019 payment data from the Yen for Docs database, compiled from disclosures by 118 companies affiliated with the Japan Medical Devices Network and other major firms. The analysis focused on honoraria-lecture, consulting, and writing fees-because these are the only categories disclosed with individual healthcare professionals names. Payments were standardized, cleaned, and aggregated at company and recipient levels. Descriptive analyses identified overall volume, company distribution, and top-earning specialties.
resultsIn 2019, 66 companies disclosed 60,161 honorarium payments totaling USD 46.0 million. Most funds (66.7%) were lecture fees, followed by consulting (28.8%) and writing (4.5%). Payments were highly concentrated: the top 10 companies accounted for 63.3% of the total, led by Medtronic, Terumo, and Johnson & Johnson. Among 24,434 recipients, 66.1% received less than USD 1,000, while only seven physicians received more than USD 100,000. Cardiologists (48.0%) and cardiovascular surgeons (24.0%) dominated the top 50 earners.
conclusionHonoraria from Japan's device industry were modest in scale compared with pharmaceutical companies but highly concentrated among a few firms and cardiovascular specialists. These findings highlight the need for more comprehensive and legally enforceable transparency frameworks to safeguard clinical integrity and public trust.
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.