Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42898543›Full record

ArticleHealth affairs scholar2026

Prevalence of ties to industry-funded organizations among patient and consumer representatives on FDA advisory committees.

Genevieve P Kanter, Toni Mankowitz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health affairs scholar, 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

2 authors.

Genevieve P KanterDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Sol Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California, VPD 512-J, 635 Downey Way, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3044-7829
Toni MankowitzLeonard D. Schaeffer Institute for Public Policy and Government Service, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: FDA advisory committees are primarily composed of scientific experts, but also include a patient representative and a consumer representative providing public perspectives. Although the FDA has enacted policies to curb conflicts of interest common among its scientific members, it has paid less attention to potential conflicts arising from patient and consumer representatives who have ties to organizations financially supported by pharmaceutical companies. Methods: We analyzed the prevalence of industry funding of advocacy organizations in which patient and consumer representatives were actively involved in the year they attended FDA advisory committee meetings between 2013 and 2022. Results: Between 2013 and 2022, nearly 2 in 5 (38%) FDA advisory committee meetings included either a patient or consumer representative with active ties to a pharmaceutical-funded advocacy organization. For several FDA committees, this share was greater than 50%. More than 1 in 10 (11%) advisory committee meetings included a representative affiliated with an organization receiving funds from the sponsor of the drug under review. Conclusion: These prevalence rates show that these organizational relationships extend beyond isolated cases and signal a broader problem warranting FDA policy attention.

Indexed as

advisory committeeconflict of interestFDApatient advocacy organization

Identifiers

PMID42898543
PMCPMC13678205

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.