ReviewJB & JS open access
Disparities in Industry Payments Between Orthopaedic Surgery and General Surgery Residents.
Review in JB & JS open access. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Industry funding may support surgical training but also raises conflict-of-interest concerns, particularly among financially vulnerable residents. This study examined whether the prevalence and magnitude of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments general payments differed between postgraduate year 5 (PGY-5) orthopaedic surgery (OS) and general surgery (GS) residents graduating in 2025, and whether these payments varied by institution type and geographic region. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of CMS Open Payments (2018-2024) for PGY-5 residents in OS and GS graduating in 2025. Residency programs were identified, and PGY-5 rosters were compiled from program websites. Residents were linked to Open Payments records. Payments were categorized as Consulting Fees/Grants/Charity, Travel/Education Support, and Hospitality. Payment prevalence and payment amounts were compared between specialties, with adjustment for institution type and geographic region. Results: Across 150 institutions (120 GS programs, 117 OS programs), 1,591 residents were analyzed. Overall, 861 of 1,591 residents (54%) had ≥1 payment; OS residents had higher prevalence than GS (57% vs. 52%; OR 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-1.53; p = 0.03). Unadjusted mean payments were $3,176 (OS) versus $798 (GS) (p < 0.0001). Adjusted mean payments remained higher for OS ($3,202) than GS ($653), a 4.90-fold difference (p < 0.0001), with significant interactions by institution type and region. Conclusions: Over half of PGY-5 GS and OS residents receive industry payments, although OS receive substantially more overall. These payments are highly concentrated at the top tier of recipients. Training programs, governing bodies, and other key stakeholders should consider developing a structured approach that capitalizes on the industry financial support while minimizing bias in resident education and delivering a more equitable distribution to all residents. Level of Evidence or Clinical Relevance: Level III (cross-sectional observational study); clinically relevant to graduate medical education policy and conflict-of-interest oversight. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.