Conflict of interest in oncology publications

Perspectives on non-financial conflicts of interest in health-related journals: A scoping review

The objective of this scoping review was to systematically review the literature on how non-financial conflicts of interest (nfCOI) are defined and evaluated, and the strategies suggested for their management in health-related and biomedical journals. PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for peer reviewed studies published in English between 1970 and December 2023 that addressed at least one of the following: the definition, evaluation, or management of non-financial conflicts of interest. From 658 studies, 190 studies were included in the review. nfCOI were discussed most commonly in empirical (22%; 42/190), theoretical (15%; 29/190) and "other" studies (18%; 34/190) - including commentary, perspective, and opinion articles. nfCOI were addressed frequently in the research domain (36%; 68/190), publication domain (29%; 55/190) and clinical practice domain (17%; 32/190). Attitudes toward nfCOI and their management were divided into two distinct groups. The first larger group claimed that nfCOI were problematic and required some form of management, whereas the second group argued that nfCOI were not problematic, and therefore, did not require management. Despite ongoing debates about the nature, definition, and management of nfCOI, many articles included in this review agreed that serious consideration needs to be given to the prevalence, impact and optimal mitigation of non-financial COI.

Do Editorialists With Industry-Related Conflicts of Interest Write Unduly Favorable Editorials for Cancer Drugs in Top Journals?

BACKGROUND

Editorials accompanying the publication of trials in major oncology journals can have a substantial influence on clinical practice. We describe the prevalence of financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) of authors writing such editorials and the extent to which FCOIs may shape the interpretation of clinical trials.

METHODS

We examined editorials published in 2018 alongside trial reports in the top 5 journals that publish cancer drug trials (New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Lancet Oncology, JAMA Oncology, and Journal of Clinical Oncology). An editorial was considered to have an FCOI if at least one of the editorialists had any disclosed FCOI. An FCOI with the same company whose drug was being discussed in the editorial was classified as a direct FCOI. Editorials were reviewed for their content and classified as being unduly favorable (defined as the presence of a positive spin without discussion of limitations) or not. Association of an FCOI and a direct FCOI with writing an unduly favorable editorial was assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 90 editorials assessed, 74% (n=67) were classified as having an FCOI with the pharmaceutical industry, and 39% (n=35) had an FCOI with the same company whose product was being discussed in the editorial (direct FCOI). Editorials were classified as being unduly favorable toward the study drug in 12% (8 of 67) and 13% (3 of 23) (P=1.0) of those with and without FCOIs, respectively; corresponding rates with and without direct FCOI were 23% (8 of 35) and 5% (3 of 55), respectively (P=.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Editorials in top oncology journals were frequently authored by experts with FCOIs, including direct FCOIs. Authoring an unduly favorable editorial for a new cancer drug was significantly associated with the author having a direct FCOI with the same company. These findings support the call for journals to ensure that authors of editorials have no direct FCOIs.

Conflicts of interest in oncology expanded access studies

Expanded access is a treatment use of investigational drugs, biologicals or medical devices outside of clinical trials. The purpose of our study was to assess self-reported conflicts of interest (COIs) in oncology expanded access studies. One hundred fifty-eight oncology expanded access studies published from 2013 through 2020 were included. The pharmaceutical industry funded either completely or in part 94 studies (59.49%). The authors disclosed mostly financial COIs, while the number of the reported nonfinancial conflicts was relatively small (3528 and 57 COIs, respectively). The number of articles in which at least one author had a financial COI was 118 (74.68%). The most common financial COI types included advisory board membership/consulting (1471 COIs; 41.7%), followed by honoraria (570 COIs; 16.16%) and research funding (441 COIs; 12.5%). Logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of disclosing financial COIs and positive study's conclusions. On univariate analysis, financial COIs were more likely to occur in studies with at least one center located in the United States (odds ratio [OR], 5.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57-35.98; P = .02). We also found that positive conclusions about the studied treatments were less likely in studies without industry funding (OR, 0.26; CI, 0.08-0.77; P = .01). Most of the research on COIs in oncology performed to date focused on other types of studies, especially clinical trials. To our knowledge, our study is the first to evaluate COIs in oncology expanded access studies.

Do Author Conflicts of Interest and Industry Sponsorship Influence Outcomes of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Regarding Glaucoma Interventions? A Cross-sectional Analysis

PRCIS

In our sample of systematic reviews focusing on treatments for glaucoma, reviews conducted by authors with a conflict of interest were more likely to reach favorable conclusions compared with reviews without conflicted authors.

PURPOSE

Previous studies have demonstrated that authors' conflict of interest can influence outcomes of systematic reviews. Therefore, we aimed to determine whether the presence of 1 of more conflicts was associated with more favorable results and conclusions in systematic reviews of glaucoma interventions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase were searched for systematic reviews of glaucoma treatments published between September 1, 2016 and June 2, 2020. Author conflicts of interest were located using multiple databases (eg, CMS Open Payments Database, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, the United States Patent and Trademark Office USPTO) and previously published disclosure statements. Study sponsorship was determined using each review's funding disclosure statement.

RESULTS

Our study included 26 systematic reviews conducted by 108 authors. Of these reviews, 9 (35%) were conducted by at least 1 author with an undisclosed conflict of interest. Of those 9, 3 (33%) reported results favoring the treatment group, and 5 (56%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Of the 17 systematic reviews with no conflicted authors, 1 (6%) reported results favoring the treatment group, and 2 (12%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. The Fisher exact tests demonstrated that these differences held a statistically significant association between author conflicts and the favorability of the reviews' conclusions toward the treatment group (P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that systematic reviews conducted by 1 or more authors with conflicts of interest were more likely than those with no conflicted authors to draw favorable conclusions about the investigated intervention.

Nursing Journal Policies on Disclosure and Management of Conflicts of Interest

PURPOSE

Concerns about conflicts of interest (COIs) in research and health care are well known, but recent reports of authors failing to disclose potential COIs in journal articles threatens the integrity of the scholarly literature. While many nursing journals have published editorials on this topic, review of nursing journal policies on and experiences with COIs has not been reported. The purposes of this study were to examine the extent to which nursing journals have COI policies and require disclosures by authors, peer reviewers, editorial board members, and editors who have a role in journal content decisions.

DESIGN

This cohort study addressed top-ranked nursing journal policies about and experiences with COIs in scholarly publications.

METHODS

An analysis of COI policies in the instructions for authors of 118 journals listed in the nursing category of Clarivate Analytics Journal Citation Reports was completed in 2019. An electronic survey of the editors was also conducted to determine their awareness and experience with COI policies for their journals. Characteristics of the journals and policies were assessed. Information on polices about COIs for editors and peer reviewers were also reviewed. A content analysis of the policies included assessment of best practices and gaps in requirements.

FINDINGS

For the journal policy assessment, 116 journals that publish only in the English language were eligible. The majority (n = 113; 97.4%) of journals had a statement on COI policies for authors, but only 42 (36.2%) had statements for peer reviewers and only 37 (31.9%) had statements for editors. A total of 117 journal editors were sent the survey. One declined to participate, leaving a total of 116 eligible editors; 82 (70.6%) responded and 34 did not respond. Sixty-seven (81.7%) of the 82 editors indicated that their journal had a policy about COIs for authors. Seventy-four editors (63.7%) responded to the question about their journal having a policy about COIs for peer reviewers and editors. Thirty-three (44.5%) of the respondents indicated their journal had a COI policy for peer reviewers, and 29 (39.1%) stated they had a policy for editors. Few editors (n = 7; 9%) indicated that they had encountered problems pertaining to author COIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this study may help promote ethical publication practices through comprehensive policies on disclosure and management of nursing journal authors, peer reviewers, and editors.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Declarations of potential conflicts of interest promote transparency and allows the consumer of research to take that into consideration when considering the findings of a study.

Conflicts of interest disclosure policies among Chinese medical journals: A cross-sectional study

IMPORTANCE

Conflicts of interest (COI) disclosure policies are critical to enhancing the integrity of research. However, it is unclear how Chinese medical journals interpret and enforce such policies.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this investigation is to determine the current status of COI disclosure policy enforcement in Chinese medical journals and to promote comprehensive COI policies.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study conducted from September 1st to October 29th 2017, journal instructions, websites and print issues of journals indexed by the Core Journals of China (version 2014), in the medical and health sector, were reviewed to identify whether COI disclosure policies existed and how complete these policies were.

RESULTS

Of 248 eligible journals, 78 (31%) mentioned COI policies; 9 (4%) applied standardized disclosure forms; 18 (7%) required disclosure statements in articles; 4 (2%) mentioned policy bases; none validated disclosed COIs; 2 (1%) mentioned how they dealt with breaches; 18 (7%) involved the management of disclosed COIs; and 62 (25%) and 55 (22%) noted financial and nonfinancial COIs, respectively. Seventy-eight journals (31%) mentioned COIs in research and authors' obligation towards disclosure; 2 (1%) and 6 (2%) mentioned family members' and institutional COIs, respectively. Twenty-two and 11 journals mentioned at least one form of financial and nonfinancial COI type in research, respectively. Seven journals (3%) required disclosure of the source of financial support in research, but no journals mentioned the amount of support. Seven (3%) and 12 (5%) journals mentioned COIs in the editorial process and peer-review, respectively. Clinical journals (45%) paid more attention to COI policies than non-clinical journals.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one-third of Chinese medical journals had COI policies, and of the journals that mentioned financial COIs most required nonfinancial COIs. However, the extent to which journals implemented COI policies was insufficient. There is a generic lack of standardized disclosure forms and management of COIs in most journals. The subject and details of COIs involved in the editorial and peer-review process received less attention than those in research.

Editors Should Declare Conflicts of Interest

Editors have increasing pressure as scholarly publishing tries to shore up trust and reassure academics and the public that traditional peer review is robust, fail-safe, and corrective. Hidden conflicts of interest (COIs) may skew the fairness of the publishing process because they could allow the status of personal or professional relationships to positively influence the outcome of peer review or reduce the processing period of this process. Not all authors have such privileged relationships. In academic journals, editors usually have very specialized skills and are selected as agents of trust, entrusted with the responsibility of serving as quality control gate-keepers during peer review. In many cases, editors form extensive networks, either with other professionals, industry, academic bodies, journals, or publishers. Such networks and relationships may influence their decisions or even their subjectivity towards a set of submitting authors, paper, or institute, ultimately influencing the peer review process. These positions and relationships are not simply aspects of a curriculum, they are potential COIs. Thus, on the editorial board of all academic journals, editors should carry a COI statement that reflects their past history, as well as actual relationships and positions that they have, as these may influence their editorial functions.

Association of Mandatory Disclosure Policies and Laws With Physician-Industry Financial Relationships

Importance

Beside the goal of increasing transparency to the public, disclosure policies and laws have been established with a goal to also reduce ethically questionable financial relationships between physicians and the medical industry. Data on these relationships should be reviewed to understand the association between these policies and laws and the attainment of reduced relationships.

Objective

To assess whether disclosure policies and laws have been associated with a decrease in financial disclosure reporting by physicians.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study uses yearly data from 2008 through 2015 from the participants in the American Academy of Ophthalmology's Annual Meeting. Trends in financial disclosures over time were investigated for the association of disclosure policies and laws with potentially beneficial, as well as ethically questionable physician-industry ties. Linear regression models were used to estimate the annual change in financial disclosures and are reported with 95% CIs.

Exposures

Disclosure policies and laws.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The annual aggregate financial disclosures by type (ie, consultant, lecturer, employee, grant support, equity owner, patent holder).

Results

Financial disclosures increased from 3966 in 2008 to 5266 in 2015 (P < .001). The number of disclosures reported in the categories consultant, equity owner, patents, and grant support all increased from 2008 to 2015 (consultant disclosures, 121 [95% CI, 88-155] per year; P < .001; equity owner disclosures, 32 [95% CI, 22-42] per year; P < .001; patent disclosures, 19 [95% CI, 13-26] per year; P < .001; grant support disclosures, 78 [95% CI, 48-107] per year; P < .001), while the employee and lecturer categories did not change significantly. The percentage of financial disclosures in the lecturer category decreased relative to the total (estimate, -1.1% [95% CI, -1.3% to -0.8%] per year; P < .001), owing to the number of financial disclosures for this category remaining stable while most other types increased.

Conclusions and Relevance

Disclosure was not associated with a chilling effect (decrease in financial disclosures associated with potentially beneficial physician-industry ties). Disclosure was associated with a possible disinfecting effect, whereby the percentage of ethically questionable disclosures (ie, lecturers) decreased, although the frequency remained stable. A permissive effect (physicians becoming more inclined to having industry relationships) was also observed. Thus, disclosure rules should be enhanced or alternative approaches to disclosure reconsidered to promote a decrease in ethically questionable relationships.

Reporting of Financial and Non-financial Conflicts of Interest in Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research: A Cross Sectional Survey

Background: Systematic reviews are increasingly used to inform health policy-making. The conflicts of interest (COI) of the authors of systematic reviews may bias their results and influence their conclusions. This may in turn lead to misguided public policies and systems level decisions. In order to mitigate the adverse impact of COI, scientific journals require authors to disclose their COIs. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency and different types of COI that authors of systematic reviews on health policy and systems research (HSPR) report.

Methods: We conducted a cross sectional survey. We searched the Health Systems Evidence (HSE) database of McMaster Health Forum for systematic reviews published in 2015. We extracted information regarding the characteristics of the systematic reviews and the associated COI disclosures. We conducted descriptive analyses.

Results: Eighty percent of systematic reviews included authors’ COI disclosures. Of the 160 systematic reviews that included COI disclosures, 15% had at least one author reporting at least one type of COI. The two most frequently reported types of COI were individual financial COI and individual scholarly COI (11% and 4% respectively). Institutional COIs were less commonly reported than individual COIs (3% and 15% respectively) and non-financial COIs were less commonly reported than financial COIs (6% and 14% respectively). Only one systematic review reported the COI disclosure by editors, and none reported disclosure by peer reviewers. All COI disclosures were in the form of a narrative statement in the main document and none in an online document.

Conclusion: A fifth of systematic reviews in HPSR do not include a COI disclosure statement, highlighting the need for journals to strengthen and/or better implement their COI disclosure policies. While only 15% of identified disclosure statements report any COI, it is not clear whether this indicates a low frequency of COI versus an underreporting of COI, or both.

Conflicts of interest policies for authors, peer reviewers, and editors of bioethics journals

BACKGROUND

In biomedical research, there have been numerous scandals highlighting conflicts of interest (COIs) leading to significant bias in judgment and questionable practices. Academic institutions, journals, and funding agencies have developed and enforced policies to mitigate issues related to COI, especially surrounding financial interests. After a case of editorial COI in a prominent bioethics journal, there is concern that the same level of oversight regarding COIs in the biomedical sciences may not apply to the field of bioethics. In this study, we examined the availability and comprehensiveness of COI policies for authors, peer reviewers, and editors of bioethics journals.

METHODS

After developing a codebook, we analyzed the content of online COI policies of 63 bioethics journals, along with policy information provided by journal editors that was not publicly available.

RESULTS

Just over half of the bioethics journals had COI policies for authors (57%), and only 25% for peer reviewers and 19% for editors. There was significant variation among policies regarding definitions, the types of COIs described, the management mechanisms, and the consequences for noncompliance. Definitions and descriptions centered on financial COIs, followed by personal and professional relationships. Almost all COI policies required disclosure of interests for authors as the primary management mechanism. Very few journals outlined consequences for noncompliance with COI policies or provided additional resources.

CONCLUSION

Compared to other studies of biomedical journals, a much lower percentage of bioethics journals have COI policies and these vary substantially in content. The bioethics publishing community needs to develop robust policies for authors, peer reviewers, and editors and these should be made publicly available to enhance academic and public trust in bioethics scholarship.

Requirements of health policy and services journals for authors to disclose financial and non-financial conflicts of interest: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The requirements of the health policy and services journals for authors to report their financial and non-financial conflicts of interest (COI) are unclear. The present article aims to assess the requirements of health policy and services journals for authors to disclose their financial and non-financial COIs.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study of journals listed by the Web of Science under the category of 'Health Policy and Services'. We reviewed the 'Instructions for Authors' on the journals' websites and then simulated the submission of a manuscript to obtain any additional relevant information made available during that step. We abstracted data in duplicate and independently using a standardised form.

RESULTS

Out of 72 eligible journals, 67 (93%) had a COI policy. A minority of policies described how the disclosed COIs of authors would impact the editorial process (34%). None of the policies had clear-cut criteria for rejection based on the content of the disclosure. Approximately a fifth of policies (21%) explicitly stated that inaccurate or incomplete disclosures might lead to manuscript rejection or retraction. No policy described whether the journal would verify the accuracy or completeness of authors' disclosed COIs. Most journals' policies (93%) required the disclosure of at least one form of financial COI. While the majority asked for specification of source of payment (71%), a minority asked for the amount (18%). Overall, 81% of policies explicitly required disclosure of non-financial COIs.

CONCLUSION

A majority of health policy and services journal policies required the disclosure of authors' financial and non-financial COIs, but few required details on disclosed COIs. Health policy journals should provide specific definitions and instructions for disclosing non-financial COIs. A framework providing clear typology and operational definitions of the different types of COIs will facilitate both their disclosure by authors and reviewers and their assessment and management by the editorial team and the readers.

Guidance in author instructions of hematology and oncology journals: A cross sectional and longitudinal study

BACKGROUND

The debate about the value of biomedical publications led to recommendations for improving reporting quality. It is unclear to what extent these recommendations have been endorsed by journals. We analyzed whether specific recommendations were included in author instructions, which journal characteristics were associated with their endorsement, how endorsement of the domains changed and whether endorsement was associated with change of impact factor between 2010 and 2015.

METHODS

We considered two study samples consisting of "Hematology" and "Oncology" journals of the Journal Citation Report 2008 and 2014, respectively. We extracted information regarding endorsement of the (1) recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, of (2) reporting guidelines, (3) requirement for trial registration and (4) disclosure of conflicts of interest. Data extraction was done by reading the author instructions before conducting a text search with keywords. We calculated a global generalized linear mixed effects model for endorsement of each of the four domains followed by separate multivariable logistic regression models and a longitudinal analysis. We defined endorsement as the author instructions saying that they approve the use of the recommendations.

RESULTS

In 2015, the ICMJE recommendations were mentioned in author instructions of 156 journals (67.5%). CONSORT was referred to by 77 journals (33.3%); MOOSE, PRISMA, STARD and STROBE were referred to by less than 15% of journals. There were 99 journals (42.9%) that recommended or required trial registration, 211 (91.3%) required authors to disclose conflicts of interest. Journal impact factor, journal start year and geographical region were positively associated with endorsement of any of the four domains. The overall endorsement of all domains increased between 2010 and 2015. The endorsement of any domain in 2010 seemed to be associated with an increased impact factor in 2014.

CONCLUSION

Hematology and oncology journals endorse major recommendations to various degrees. Endorsement is increasing slowly over time and might be positively associated with the journals' impact factor.

Requirements of Clinical Journals for Authors' Disclosure of Financial and Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest: A Cross Sectional Study

IMPORTANCE

It is unclear how medical journals address authors' financial and non-financial conflict of interest (COI).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the policies of clinical journals for disclosure of financial and non-financial COI.

METHODS

Cross sectional study that included both review of public documents as well as a simulation of a manuscript submission for the National Library of Medicine's "core clinical journals". The study did not involve human subjects. Investigators who abstracted the data, reviewed "instructions for authors" on the journal website and, in order to reflect the actual implementation of the COI disclosure policy, simulated the submission of a manuscript. Two individuals working in duplicate and independently to abstract information using a standardized data abstraction form, resolved disagreements by discussion or with the help of a third person.

RESULTS

All but one of 117 core clinical journals had a COI policy. All journals required disclosure of financial COI pertaining to the authors and a minority (35%) asked for financial COI disclosure pertaining to the family members or authors' institution (29%). Over half required the disclosure of at least one form of non-financial COI (57%), out of which only two (3%) specifically referred to intellectual COI. Small minorities of journals (17% and 24% respectively) described a potential impact of disclosed COI and of non-disclosure of COI on the editorial process.

CONCLUSION

While financial COI disclosure was well defined by the majority of the journals, many did not have clear policies on disclosure of non-financial COI, disclosure of financial COI of family members and institutions of the authors, and effect of disclosed COI or non-disclosure of COI on editorial policies.

Conflict of interests for radiation oncologists: Harnessing disclosures from policy to reality

PURPOSE

An increasing attention is being paid to disclosures of conflicts of interests in the field of oncology. The purpose of this study was to examine how radiation oncologists report their conflicts of interests with pharmaceutical or technology industries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We collected the data of conflicts of interests disclosures in the abstract books from the annual 2012 and 2013 meetings of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) in Miami (FL, USA), and in Atlanta (GA, USA), respectively. Geographic origins of abstracts as well other factors were examined.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 4219 abstracts published in the past two years. The total number of involved authors was of 28,283. All of the published abstracts had conflicts of interests disclosures. Amongst them, 563 abstracts (13.4%) reported at least one potential conflict of interests, in which 1264 (4.5%) declared a potential conflict of interests in their disclosures. Geographic distribution of abstracts with financial relationship was as following: 67.9%, 15.5%, 7.7% and 7.7% for USA, Europe, Asia/Pacifica, and Canada, respectively. Abstracts with conflict of interest originated from North America in 75.6% of cases. USA distribution was 70.6% and 29.4% for Eastern and Western, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of physicians declaring financial conflicts of interests remains extremely low, whichever geographic area authors are from. In comparison to the rest of the world, the US proved itself better at declaring potential links. Changes in medical culture and education could represent a significant step to improve the process of revealing conflicts of interest in medical journal as well as in international meetings.

A Quantitative Analysis of Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest in Pharmacology Textbooks

BACKGROUND

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest (CoI) is a standard practice for many biomedical journals but not for educational materials. The goal of this investigation was to determine whether the authors of pharmacology textbooks have undisclosed financial CoIs and to identify author characteristics associated with CoIs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The presence of potential CoIs was evaluated by submitting author names (N = 403; 36.3% female) to a patent database (Google Scholar) as well as a database that reports on the compensation ($USD) received from 15 pharmaceutical companies (ProPublica's Dollars for Docs). All publications (N = 410) of the ten highest compensated authors from 2009 to 2013 and indexed in Pubmed were also examined for disclosure of additional companies that the authors received research support, consulted, or served on speaker's bureaus. A total of 134 patents had been awarded (Maximum = 18/author) to textbook authors. Relative to DiPiro's Pharmacotherapy: A Pathophysiologic Approach, contributors to Goodman and Gilman's Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics and Katzung's Basic and Clinical Pharmacology were more frequently patent holders (OR = 6.45, P < .0005). Female authors were less likely than males to have > 1 patent (OR = 0.15, P < .0005). A total of $2,411,080 USD (28.3% for speaking, 27.0% for consulting, and 23.9% for research), was received by 53 authors (Range = $299 to $310,000/author). Highly compensated authors were from multiple fields including oncology, psychiatry, neurology, and urology. The maximum number of additional companies, not currently indexed in the Dollars for Docs database, for which an author had potential CoIs was 73.

CONCLUSIONS

Financial CoIs are common among the authors of pharmacology and pharmacotherapy textbooks. Full transparency of potential CoIs, particularly patents, should become standard procedure for future editions of educational materials in pharmacology.

Conflicts of interest and critiques of the use of systematic reviews in policymaking: an analysis of opinion articles

BACKGROUND

Strong opinions for or against the use of systematic reviews to inform policymaking have been published in the medical literature. The purpose of this paper was to examine whether funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest were associated with whether an opinion article was supportive or critical of the use of systematic reviews for policymaking. We examined the nature of the arguments within each article, the types of disclosures present, and whether these articles are being cited in the academic literature.

METHODS

We searched for articles that expressed opinions about the use of systematic reviews for policymaking. We included articles that presented opinions about the use of systematic reviews for policymaking and categorized each article as supportive or critical of such use. We extracted all arguments regarding the use of systematic reviews from each article and inductively coded each as internal or external validity argument, categorized disclosed funding sources, conflicts of interest, and article types, and systematically searched for undisclosed financial ties. We counted the number of times each article has been cited in the "Web of Science." We report descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Articles that were critical of the use of systematic reviews (n=25) for policymaking had disclosed or undisclosed industry ties 2.3 times more often than articles that were supportive of the use (n=34). We found that editorials, comments, letters, and perspectives lacked published disclosures nearly twice as often (60% v. 33%) as other types of articles. We also found that editorials, comments, letters, and perspectives were less frequently cited in the academic literature than other article types (median number of citations=5 v. 19).

CONCLUSIONS

It is important to consider whether an article has industry ties when evaluating the strength of the argument for or against the use of systematic reviews for policymaking. We found that journal conflict of interest disclosures are often inadequate, particularly for editorials, comments, letters, and perspectives and that these articles are being cited as evidence in the academic literature. Our results further suggest the need for more consistent and complete disclosure for all article types.

Financial, nonfinancial and editors' conflicts of interest in high-impact biomedical journals

PURPOSE

To assess financial, nonfinancial and editors' conflicts of interest (COI) disclosure policies among the most influential biomedical journals publishing original research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study of 399 high-impact biomedical journals in 27 biomedical categories of the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) in December 2011. Information relevant to COI and requirements for disclosures that was publicly available on journal websites was collected.

RESULTS

While financial COI disclosures were required by 358 (89.7%) and nonfinancial by 280 (70.2%) journals, 155 (38.8%) required editors' disclosures. Journals in the first decile of the JCR classification scored significantly higher than those in the second decile for all disclosure policies. Ninety (22.6%) journals were published by Elsevier and 59 (14.8%) by Wiley-Blackwell, with Elsevier scoring significantly better in financial disclosure policies (P = 0.022). Clinical journals scored significantly higher than basic journals for all disclosure policies. No differences were observed between open-access (n = 25) and nonopen-access (n = 374) journals for any type of disclosure. Somewhat incoherently, authors' disclosure statements were included in some published manuscript in 57.1% of journals without any COI disclosure policies.

CONCLUSIONS

Authors' financial COI disclosures were required by about 90% of high-impact clinical and basic journals publishing original research. Unlike recent studies showing a significantly lower prevalence of nonfinancial compared with financial disclosures, the former were required by about 70% of journals, suggesting that editors are increasingly concerned about nonfinancial competing interests. Only 40% of journals required disclosure of editors' COI, in conflict with the recommendations of the most influential editors' associations.

Self-reported conflicts of interest of authors, trial sponsorship, and the interpretation of editorials and related phase III trials in oncology

PURPOSE

Growing participation by industry in cancer research has resulted in increased reporting of conflicts of interest (COI). We aimed to test any association between authors' conclusions and self-reported COI or trial sponsorship in cancer studies.

METHODS

Editorials and related phase III trials published in six clinical oncology journals in the last 3.5 years were analyzed independently by two investigators who classified study conclusions according to authors' endorsement of the experimental therapy. Logistic regression multivariable models were used to assess predictors of favorable conclusions of editorialists and of phase III authors.

RESULTS

From January 2008 to October 2011, 1,485 articles were retrieved: 150 phase III trials and 150 editorials were eligible. Among the phase III trials, 82 (54.7%) had positive results, and 78 (52.0%) were entirely or partially funded by industry. Any COI were disclosed in 103 phase III trials (68.7%) and in 71 editorials (47.3%). Multivariable analysis showed that phase III trial results were the only significant predictor for a positive conclusion by trial authors (odds ratio [OR], 92.2; 95% CI, 19.7 to 431.6; P < .001). Sponsorship did not predict for positive conclusion by phase III authors (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.3 to 2.5; P = .788). The only factor associated with positive conclusions by editorial authors was a positive conclusion by phase III trial authors (OR, 36.3; 95% CI, 6.8 to 194.2; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The interpretation of recently published phase III cancer trials by their authors or by editorialists was not influenced by financial relationships or industry sponsorship. Increased awareness of COI policies may have led to more integrity in cancer research reporting.

The prevalence and influence of self-reported conflicts of interest by editorial authors of phase III cancer trials

PURPOSE

To assess the frequency with which editorial authors report personal conflict of interest and investigate a possible association between the presence of such conflicts and favorable opinion.

METHODS

Eligible studies were editorials of phase III clinical trials of antitumor drugs or symptom management published from January 2007 to December 2009 in four top oncology journals. Data from the editorials were collected and each editorial opinion was classified as favorable, neutral or unfavorable with respect to the experimental therapy.

RESULTS

Fifty-four editorials were included: 23 (43%) reported at least one conflict of interest, with the most frequent one being consultancy fees. Conclusions of editorial authors were classified as favorable in 18 editorials (33%). Sensitivity analysis found an association between self-reported conflict of interest of the editorial author and editorial favorable opinion (RR:2.7; 95% CI 1.2-6.1; p=0.019).

DISCUSSION

Besides the high proportion of conflict of interest among editorial authors discussing phase III clinical trials, study interpretation may be influenced by their financial relationships with industry.

Conflict of interest reporting by authors involved in promotion of off-label drug use: an analysis of journal disclosures

BACKGROUND

Litigation documents reveal that pharmaceutical companies have paid physicians to promote off-label uses of their products through a number of different avenues. It is unknown whether physicians and scientists who have such conflicts of interest adequately disclose such relationships in the scientific publications they author.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We collected whistleblower complaints alleging illegal off-label marketing from the US Department of Justice and other publicly available sources (date range: 1996-2010). We identified physicians and scientists described in the complaints as having financial relationships with defendant manufacturers, then searched Medline for articles they authored in the subsequent three years. We assessed disclosures made in articles related to the off-label use in question, determined the frequency of adequate disclosure statements, and analyzed characteristics of the authors (specialty, author position) and articles (type, connection to off-label use, journal impact factor, citation count/year). We identified 39 conflicted individuals in whistleblower complaints. They published 404 articles related to the drugs at issue in the whistleblower complaints, only 62 (15%) of which contained an adequate disclosure statement. Most articles had no disclosure (43%) or did not mention the pharmaceutical company (40%). Adequate disclosure rates varied significantly by article type, with commentaries less likely to have adequate disclosure compared to articles reporting original studies or trials (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.10, 95%CI = 0.02-0.67, p = 0.02). Over half of the authors (22/39, 56%) made no adequate disclosures in their articles. However, four of six authors with ≥ 25 articles disclosed in about one-third of articles (range: 10/36-8/25 [28%-32%]).

CONCLUSIONS

One in seven authors identified in whistleblower complaints as involved in off-label marketing activities adequately disclosed their conflict of interest in subsequent journal publications. This is a much lower rate of adequate disclosure than has been identified in previous studies. The non-disclosure patterns suggest shortcomings with authors and the rigor of journal practices. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.