Observational studyPloS one2026
Distribution of industry-sponsored research payments to US physician principal investigators.
Observational study 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.
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
backgroundThe Open Payments program (OPP) was launched in 2013 following the passage of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act (PPSA) to promote transparency of physician-industry financial relationships. Extensive research has scrutinized general (non-research) payments from industry to physicians. However, industry-sponsored research payments (ISRPs), the largest payment category by value in the OPP, are relatively understudied. We characterized the distribution of ISRPs to US physician principal investigators (PIs) across medical specialties.
methodsIn this retrospective, observational study, we used publicly-available data from the OPP database to identify cash-or-equivalent ISRPs to physician PIs during 2016-2022. We stratified ISRPs by recipient types (to physician PIs directly and indirectly via teaching hospitals and other organizations referred to as non-covered entities [NCEs]). Our primary outcome measures included ISRP distributions by medical specialties of physician PIs. Secondary measures of interest included identifying medical products associated with the highest total payment amounts.
resultsDuring 2016-2022, ISRPs to physician PIs totaled $33.9 billion, with most ($26.6 billion, 78.5%) directed to physician PIs via NCEs, rather than teaching hospitals or directly to physicians. Physician PIs receiving the highest total payment amounts were general internists, hematologist-oncologists, and neurologists. Anti-cancer drugs, particularly immunotherapy agents, accounted for most of the 25 products associated with the largest payment amounts.
conclusionsThis study revealed significant industry payments in physician-led research, particularly in oncology. Furthermore, the study highlights a need for improved research payment disclosures. OPP reporting rules do not require specific disclosure of payments for research expenses versus physician compensations within an ISRP, nor specific products investigated in industry-sponsored research of experimental products. Improved disclosures will promote transparency of physician-industry financial relationships as originally intended by the PPSA.
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.