Industry Funding and Self-Declared Conflict of Interest in Hand Surgery Publications

Hepatic Ablation Technology: Assessment of Conflicts of Interest in Recent Literature

INTRODUCTION

Collaboration between the health care industry and surgeons is critical in modern medicine. Conflict of interest (COI) has the risk of introducing bias into research studies. We investigated the accuracy of self-disclosed COI for studies that researched the use of microwave ablation for liver metastasis.

METHODS

A literature search identified studies that investigated the use of microwave ablation for liver cancer between 2016 and 2022. We utilized the Open Payments Database to query individual authors' financial contributions from the industry. The accuracy of the disclosure statement and financial contribution for each study and author was calculated. We compared the amount of financial contribution authors received based on the accuracy of their COI statement.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies of interest were identified. The mean number of authors was 8.24. A disclosure statement was present in 52% of studies. Of those, 28% had an incongruent disclosure statement. 9/25 (36%) of studies had a conflict of interest based on financial payments provided by industry. Overall, authors received an average of $440,483.41 (SD $1,889,375.34). We did not find a difference in the financial contribution's value based on the disclosure statement's accuracy (P = .55).

CONCLUSIONS

Over a quarter of studies in our review of microwave ablation literature had discrepancies in the reporting of conflicts of interest, highlighting the need for improved reporting of potential conflicts of interest to protect the integrity of clinical research. Compared to other fields of surgery, we found a lower rate of undisclosed COI, suggesting that the scope of cancer-directed surgery may be more resistant to industry influence.

2015-2021 Industry Payments to Pediatric Orthopaedic Surgeons: Analysis of Trends and Characteristics of Top-earning Surgeons

BACKGROUND

Analysis of industry payments to pediatric orthopaedic surgeons last occurred in 2017. We investigated payments to pediatric orthopaedic surgeons from 2015 to 2021 to understand surgeon characteristics associated with increased industry payments.

METHODS

Open Payments Database datasets from 2015 to 2021 were queried for nonresearch payments to pediatric orthopaedic surgeons. Annual aggregates and subcategories were recorded. For surgeons receiving payments in 2021, the Hirsch index (h-index), gender, and US census division were found using the Scopus database, Open Payments Database, and online hospital profiles, respectively. χ 2 , Fisher exact, Mann-Whitney U , and t tests were used to compare surgeons in the top 25%, 10%, and 5% payment percentiles to the bottom 75%, 90%, and 95%, respectively.

RESULTS

Payments rose 125% from 2015 to 2021. Education, royalties, and faculty/speaker increased most, while travel/lodging, honoraria, charitable contributions, and ownership interest decreased. Only royalties increased from 2019 to 2021. In 2021, of 419 pediatric orthopaedic surgeons receiving industry payments, men received greater median aggregate payments than women ($379.03 vs. $186.96, P =0.047). There were no differences in gender proportions between the top 75% and bottom 25% ( P =0.054), top 10% and bottom 90% ( P =0.235), and top 5% and bottom 95% ( P =0.280) earning comparison groups. The h-index was weakly positively correlated with industry payments ( rs =0.203, P <0.001). Mean h-indices in the 75th ( P <0.001, 95% CI: 2.62-7.65), 90th ( P =0.001, 95% CI: 3.28-13.03), and 95th ( P =0.005, 95% CI: 4.25-21.11) percentiles were significantly higher. Proportions of surgeons from the Middle Atlantic and West South Central in the 90th ( P =0.025) and 95th percentiles ( P =0.033), respectively, were significantly lower compared to all other regions. A higher proportion of surgeons from the Pacific were placed in the 90th ( P =0.004) and 95th ( P =0.024) percentiles.

CONCLUSIONS

Industry payments to pediatric orthopaedic surgeons rose from 2015 to 2021. Most categories fell from 2019 to 2021, which may be related to the SARS-CoV-19 pandemic. In 2021, though gender was not related to aggregate payment percentile, location in select US census divisions and h-index was.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II-Retrospective study.

Analysis of Conflicts of Interest in Studies Related to Robotics in Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Wall Surgery

BACKGROUND

Industry payments to physicians represent a potential conflict of interest (COI) and can influence the study conclusions. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the COIs reported in major surgical journals.

STUDY DESIGN

Studies with at least one American author published between 2016 and 2021 that discussed observational and intervention studies assessing robotic surgery were included in the analysis. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Open Payments database was used to collect the industry payments. A COI is defined as receiving funding from a robotics company while publishing research directly related to the company's products. A COI statement was defined as disclosed (or accurate) if the disclosure statement for the study in question acknowledged funding from the robotics companies. A COI was defined as undisclosed (or inaccurate) if the disclosure statement for the study in question did not acknowledge funding from the robotics companies.

RESULTS

A total of 314 studies and 1978 authors were analyzed. Only 13.6% of the studies had accurate COI statements, whereas the majority (86.4%) had inaccurate COI disclosures. Additionally, 48.9% of the authors who received funding of $10,000 to $100,000 failed to report this amount in their disclosures, and 18% of the authors who received funding of $100,000 or more did not report it in their disclosures.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a significant discordance between the self-reported COI in gastrointestinal and abdominal wall surgeries. This study calls for continued efforts to improve the definitions of what constitutes a relevant COI and encourages a standardized reporting process. It is imperative for investigators to make accurate disclosure statements.

Assessment of Conflicts of Interest in the Transcarotid Artery Revascularization Literature

INTRODUCTION

To systematically review the accuracy of self-reported conflicts of interest (COIs) among transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) studies and evaluate factors associated with increased discrepancies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search identified all TCAR-related studies with at least one American author published between January 2017 and December 2020. Industry payments from Silk Road Medical, Inc. were collected using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Open Payments database. COI discrepancies were identified by comparing author declaration statements with payments found for the year of publication and year prior (24-mo period). Risk factors for COI discrepancy were evaluated at both the study and author level.

RESULTS

A total of 79 studies (472 authors) were identified. Sixty four studies (81%) had at least one author who received payments from Silk Road Medical, Inc. Fifty eight (73%) studies had at least one author who received an undeclared payment. Consulting fees represented the majority of general payment subtype (60%). Authors who accurately disclosed payments received significantly higher median payments compared to authors who did not accurately disclose payments ($37,222 [interquartile range: $28,203-$132,589] versus $1748 [interquartile range $257-$35,041], P < 0.0001). Senior authors were significantly more likely to have a COI discrepancy compared to first authors (P = 0.0219).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of TCAR-related studies did not accurately declare COI. A multivariate analysis demonstrated no effect of sponsorship on study recommendations or impact factor. This study highlights the need for increased efforts in accountability to improve the transparency of industry sponsorship, especially when consulting authors are reporting their results on patient outcomes.

Does Academic Productivity Correlate With Industry Payments in Hand Surgery Fellowship Programs in the United States?

BACKGROUND

Hand surgeons and the industry share a common goal to improve the care of patients. However, industry support remains controversial, and the current relationship with fellowship programs remains unclear. This study explores the relationship between industry support and research productivity among hand surgeons in the academic setting.

METHODS

The Open Payments database, created by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as a result of the Sunshine Act, was used to identify supplemental income paid to physicians of hand surgery fellowships in the United States. Both lifetime individual physician and aggregated fellowship Sunshine Act supplemental income (2015-2021) were collected for review. Supplemental income only reflects royalties, consulting fees, or food and does not include direct research funding. H-index was collected through the Scopus website as a proxy for academic productivity.

RESULTS

Six hundred and thirty-four faculty physicians (90.8%) from 94 hand surgery fellowships (100%) were included in the study. The mean individual physician lifetime supplemental income was $67,272 (median $341,861), whereas the mean individual physician H-index was 12.5 (median 9.0). There was a significant and weak positive correlation between individual physician H-index and lifetime income (p<0.001). Similarly, there was a significant and moderately positive correlation between the combined fellowship H-index and total lifetime income (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Research productivity of an orthopedic hand fellowship group and individual academic hand surgeon correlate with overall industry support from indirect research funding. Further work is required to better understand the advantages and disadvantages of industry support of academically productive hand surgeons at hand surgery fellowships.

Do Corporate Payments Influence Research Related to the Use of Acellular Dermal Matrices in Breast Surgery?

BACKGROUND

No study has assessed the impact of financial conflicts of interests (COIs) on the reporting of breast reconstruction outcomes with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in peer-reviewed publications. The authors hypothesized that there is (1) an association between financial COIs and likelihood of studies reporting benefits in using ADM, and (2) inconsistent reporting of financial COIs.

METHODS

The PubMed database was used to identify articles that reported on the use of ADM in breast surgery in four leading plastic surgery journals from January of 2014 to December of 2019. Financial COIs for authors were determined using the open payments database.

RESULTS

Fifty-five articles were included. Twenty-four articles (43.6%) supported use of ADM, 12 (21.8%) did not promote ADM use, and 19 (34.5%) were neutral. Fifty-one studies (92.7%) had either a first or senior author with a COI, and authors with a COI more commonly reported positive outcomes ( P = 0.02). Studies with positive outcomes featured first authors who received significantly larger financial payments ($95,955 versus $15,642; P = 0.029) compared with studies with negative or neutral outcomes. Receiver operating characteristic curve demonstrated that studies with first authors receiving over $376.28 were more likely to report positive results. Eight senior authors and three first authors received greater than $500 from ADM producers yet did not report any financial disclosure.

CONCLUSIONS

Financial COI is associated with higher likelihood of studies reporting benefit of using ADM in breast surgery. There remains inconsistent reporting of COIs, and better oversight is needed to ensure unbiased publication on the use of ADM in breast surgery.

[The Impact of Industrial Sponsorship on Research Findings in Randomised Clinical Trials in Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery: a Cross- Section Analysis of the Past 12 Years]

BACKGROUND

Industry funding of research studies can cause the results in the field of plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic surgery to be biased towards the sponsors. This paper aims to review randomised clinical trials (RCTs) published by leading international journals in plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic surgery with respect to characteristics and possible industry-friendly conclusions in favour of those funding the study.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Characteristic data and funding of RCTs published by leading international plastic surgery journals from January 2010 to January 2022 were evaluated. The studies were categorised based on their thematic focus and the results in light of the existing funding.

RESULTS

A total of 381 RCTs were included in the analysis, 68.5% of which were from a university (n=261). The larger proportion of studies did not disclose any information about the research funding. While 26% (n=98) of the studies analysed were funded by companies, 9.7% (n=37) were funded by universities/the government (p<0.05, 95% confidence interval). The overall focus of private clinics was aesthetics (n=32). Generally, the topic aesthetics (n=153) was funded by industry in 28 of 100 cases (28% industry/private sponsors compared with 9% university/government). Regarding reconstruction/burns/hand surgery, 9.2% of studies were funded by companies/private sponsors. Funding for research by university-based institutions was industry-sponsored in 25% (n=64) of cases. Regarding industry-sponsored studies, 73% (n=71) of the results were product-friendly in their conclusion (p<0.05, 95% confidence interval) and placed their thematic focus on therapeutic drug/product application (n=50, 75%).

CONCLUSION

In terms of funding, industry and private sponsors take a leading role both in reconstruction and aesthetics. Nonetheless, the majority of the evaluated studies were not financed by the private sector. In cases where the research was funded by private companies, the results were significantly in favour of the product. Aesthetics as a focus is currently more frequently funded by industry than reconstruction, burn, and hand surgery.

Industry-specific Patterns in the Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest in Hand and Upper Extremity Surgery: A Review of the Nerve Allograft Industry

INTRODUCTION

Industry funding in medicine enhances physician training but can create bias influencing accurate reporting of outcomes. High rates of conflict of interest (COI) disclosure have been found in orthopaedic surgery. However, industry-specific disclosures have not been investigated and small-value compensations previously excluded. Using the nerve allograft industry as a proxy to examine specific patterns of COI between physicians and industries relevant to their publications, we sought to evaluate patterns in industry-specific COI disclosure within the hand and upper extremity surgery literature.

METHODS

Literature search for primary studies using nerve allografts in the hand and upper extremity from 2013 to 2021 was conducted. Authors were cross-referenced with their publication's COI statement and payments recorded in the Open Payments Database (OPD). Only payments relevant to the topic or product presented in the publication were included. Payments in all OPD subdivisions were compared.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with 14 first, 72 middle, and 14 senior authors were included. Disclosed and undisclosed payments totaled $2,848,196 and $2,509,397. Only 28% of the authors had completely accurate COI statements. Research and food and beverage comprised the highest and lowest average rates of accurate disclosure (93.8% and 24.9%). The value of accurately disclosed payments was significantly greater on a per-author basis among senior authors ( P < 0.001). Neither the value of undisclosed payments nor the rate of accurate disclosure differed by authorship position ( P = 0.904 and P = 0.350).

DISCUSSION

When examined in the context of industries specific to publication, the rate of correct COI disclosure is lower than previously reported with small-value compensation a major contributor. Areas of improvement include the following: (1) All authors should be held accountable for correct disclosure; (2) all forms of financial support should be reported; and (3) journals should independently verify disclosures to the OPD. OPD utilization may help verify correct reporting, especially when the industry is related to the area of study, in the interest of maintaining the highest editorial integrity.

Spatial Interactions and the Commercialisation of Academic Patents: The Chinese Experience

Studies on academic patent commercialisation are well documented. However, spatial effects are seldom considered, which could lead to potentially misleading analytical results. This study addresses this concern by applying the spatial analysis method to investigate how university-level factors and commercialising academic patents are related. Using a comprehensive dataset of university patents from 1815 Chinese universities in 2016, we find that public research funding of universities, industrial research funding, the number of scientific research personnel, the number of monographs published, and the number of awarded achievements are positively related to the commercialisation of academic patents. However, the number of teaching and research personnel and the number of academic papers published are negatively related. There are positive spatial spillover effects in commercialising academic patents among neighbouring universities, but there will be negative spatial spillover effects in funding competition.

Disparities Among Industry's Highly Compensated Orthopaedic Surgeons

The prosperous financial relationship between physicians and industry remains a highly scrutinized topic. Recently, a publicly available website was developed in conjunction with the U.S. Affordable Care Act to shed light on payments from industry to physicians with the goal of increasing transparency. The purpose of this study was to assess possible relationships between industry payments and orthopaedic surgeon gender, subspecialty training, and practice settings.

What are the rates and validity of French authors' conflicts of interest disclosures in Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research? Analysis of the year 2017 with comparison versus the Transparence.sante.gouv.fr database

INTRODUCTION

Authors are responsible for their own Disclosure of Interests in submitting to Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR). Disclosure may be incomplete or false, by deliberate or unintended omission. Omission may impact the analysis of results or at least the reader's perception of it. The rate of validity of disclosure in OTSR is not known, and we therefore conducted a bibliometric study on articles published in 2017, in order to: 1) determine the proportion of articles in which authors disclose interests; and 2), when interests are disclosed, to assess their validity by comparison against the Transparence.gov.fr database.

HYPOTHESIS

Disclosure rates exceed 75%.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

We analyzed all articles published in OTSR in 2017, and extracted those with at least one French author. We also analyzed data from the Transparence.gouv.fr corporate declaration database, for comparison with the authors' own disclosures in each article. Significant interest was defined by a €1000 threshold, although higher thresholds (>€5000, >€10,000 and >€100,000) were also investigated.

RESULTS

In 2017, 337 articles were published in OTSR, 210 of which had at least 1 French author. Of these, 201 (95.7%) had at least 1 author with significant interest (>€1000) according to the Transparence data. In 189 of these 201 articles (94%), authors had failed to disclose at least 1 direct or indirect conflict of interest. This omission rate fell to 22/45 (48.9%) for more substantial interests, which were more faithfully disclosed. At the €1000 threshold, in only 8/201 articles (4%) did authors disclose all their interests with perfect validity, but this rate increased up to 25/45 (55.5%) at higher thresholds. At the €1000 threshold, 66 of the 201 articles cited the trade-name of interest, resulting in 54/66 (82%) correct disclosure of direct interest; this rate increased up to 25/26 (96%) at higher thresholds.

DISCUSSION

At a threshold of €1000, the rate of complete and valid disclosure was 4% and the rate of omission 94%. At higher thresholds, rates were better, with just 48.9% omission and, above all, 55.5% validity, even if these rates were lower than hypothesized (75%). Authors and editors need to take greater care. Disclosures were often made, but incompletely, and authors need reminding that they must disclose not only interests related to the article in question but also all interests that might directly or indirectly influence their interpretation of the results reported, allowing readers to make up their own minds.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; systematic retrospective study.

Industry Payments to Adult Reconstruction-Trained Orthopedic Surgeons: An Analysis of the Open Payments Database From 2014 to 2019

BACKGROUND

In recent time, there has been an increased push toward transparency in industry funding toward physicians. The Physician Payments Sunshine Act called for the creation of the Open Payments Database managed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. To our knowledge, there have been no studies evaluating the trends in payments among adult reconstruction fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeons. The purpose of this study is to investigate trends in all payments to adult reconstruction-trained orthopedic surgeons from 2014 to 2019. Secondary outcomes included evaluating trends in yearly subpayment categories, regional variations, as well as characterizing the top 5 industry companies.

METHODS

A review of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database was performed to identify all payments to adult reconstruction-trained orthopedic surgeons. A total of 94,265 payments were made to 4911 surgeons accounting for a total of $258,865,231.20 during the study period. Our primary outcome was to assess the trend in median payment per year to individual surgeons. Secondary outcomes included evaluating payment trends with respect to subtype, location as defined by United States Census regions, as well as specifics concerning the top 5 companies.

RESULTS

Over the study period, there was a nonsignificant increasing trend in median payment per surgeon (r = 0.49, P = .096). However, there was also a significantly increasing trend in the number of payments per year (r = 0.83, P = .014), as well as the number of surgeons receiving payments (r = 0.88, P = .019). With respect to subcategory payments, there were significantly increasing trends in the median payment per surgeon for education (1054%, r = 0.942, P < .001) and entertainment/food and beverage expenses (20.2%, r = 0.49, P = .020), as well as a significantly decreasing trend for median honoraria payments per surgeon (20.2%, r = -0.04, P = .005). No significant regional trends were identified. Of the top 5 companies, one demonstrated a significantly decreasing trend in median payment per surgeon (21.6%, r = -0.109, P < .001), whereas the others remained unchanged.

CONCLUSION

In this study, we found a nonsignificant increasing trend in payments to adult reconstruction-trained surgeons as well as an increasing number of surgeons receiving payments. There were increasing trends in median payment per surgeon for education and entertainment expenses, but a decreasing trend for honoraria payments. No significant regional trends were identified. The majority of the top 5 companies had nonsignificant trends in their payments. Further studies are needed to characterize the disclosure of payments and the impact of industry payments on clinical outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

The Influence of the Sunshine Act on Industry Payments to United States Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Surgeons

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study is to investigate trends in overall payments to orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons reported by the Open Payments Database (OPD) over the 6 full years of available data (2014-2019).

METHODS

A retrospective review of industry payments to United States sports medicine trained orthopaedic surgeons from 2014 to 2019 was performed using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services OPD. Total payments and subtype payments were analyzed for yearly trends. Regional analysis was also performed. The primary outcome was the overall trend in total median payments (defined as the median total payments per surgeon per year), which was assessed via the Jonckheere-Terpstra test. Descriptive statistics include medians with interquartile ranges. P values < .05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

From 2014 to 2019, there were a total of 1,941,772 payments to 12,816 sports medicine orthopaedic surgeons. The median payments to surgeons demonstrated a significant upward trend (P < .001). The total number of payments (r = 0.002; P = .99) did not significantly correlate with changing year. The top 5 compensated surgeons received 45.8% of all industry contributions with a median total payment of $9,210,974.06 (interquartile range: 25,029,951.46). The majority of industry contributions in the top 5 earners were attributed to royalties and licenses (98.7%). Across the study period, 89.4% of the total orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons received a yearly total payment less than $10,000, which made up 8.3% of the total industry payment sum. Those receiving a yearly total payment greater than $500,000 accounted for 0.3% of surgeons but received 53.4% of the sum payments. We found a yearly increasing trend in payments in all regions including the Midwest, South, Northeast, and West (P < .001, P < .001, P < .001, and P = .006).

CONCLUSION

Despite the transparency of reporting mandated by the Sunshine Act, orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons have continued to maintain industry relationships with a notable disparity in distribution.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Our analysis suggests continued relationships among sports medicine surgeons and industry. Future research is needed to determine how this impacts medical practice in the United States.

Review of Industry Payments to General Orthopaedic Surgeons Reported by the Open Payments Database: 2014 to 2019

Introduction:

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act was placed into law in 2010 in an effort to create transparency between physicians and industry. Along with many other specialties, orthopaedic surgeons have long worked intimately with medical industry companies. This study aimed to evaluate trends in industry payments to general orthopaedic surgeons from 2014 to 2019.

Methods:

A retrospective review of the Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services' Open Payments Database was done to identify all industry payments to all general orthopaedic surgeons (ie, not subspecialty affiliated) from 2014 to 2019. The researchers analyzed total payments and subtype payments for yearly trends, and a regional analysis was done. The primary outcome was the overall trend in total median payments, which was assessed through the Jonckheere-Terpstra test. Descriptive statistics include medians with interquartile ranges. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

Between 2014 and 2019, a total of 1,330,543 payments totaling $1.79 billion dollars was paid to 108,041 general orthopaedic surgeons. During this time, the number of surgeons receiving payments increased with a significant uptrend in median payments per surgeon (P < 0.001; Table 1). The top 25% percentile of general orthopaedic surgeons received >95% of payments, whereas the bottom 25% received <0.1%. The general payment types all saw significant increases (P < 0.001) between 2014 and 2019, with the exception of “Ownership or Investment Interests” (P = 0.657) and “Royalty or License” (P = 0.517). Significant regional uptrends in median industry payments were also seen in the Midwest, Northeast, South, and West (P < 0.001). Four of the top five orthopaedic industry companies made payment increases between 2014 and 2019.

Conclusion:

Industry payments to general orthopaedic surgeons between 2014 and 2019 have increased with a considerable disparity in payments among the top-paid orthopaedic surgeons.

Discrepancies in self-reported financial conflicts of interest disclosures by physicians: a systematic review

Background

There is a high prevalence of financial conflicts of interest (COI) between physicians and industry.

Objectives

To conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis examining the completeness of self-reported financial COI disclosures by physicians, and identify factors associated with non-disclosure.

Data sources

MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO were searched for eligible studies up to April 2020 and supplemented with material identified in the references and citing articles.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data were independently abstracted by two authors. Data synthesis was performed via systematic review of eligible studies and random-effects meta-analysis.

Main outcomes and measures

The proportion of discrepancies between physician self-reported disclosures and objective payment data was the main outcome. The proportion of discrepant funds and factors associated with non-disclosure were also examined.

Results

40 studies were included. The pooled proportion of COI discrepancies at the article level was 81% (range: 54%–98%; 95% CI 72% to 89%), 79% at the payment level (range: 71%–89%; 95% CI 67% to 89%), 93% at the authorship level (range: 71%–100%; 95% CI 79% to 100%) and 66% at the author level (range: 8%–99%; 95% CI 48% to 78%). The proportion of funds discrepant was 33% (range: 2%–77%; 95% CI 12% to 58%). There was high heterogeneity between studies across all five analyses (I²=94%–99%). Most undisclosed COI were related to food and beverage, or travel and lodging. While the most common explanation for failure to disclose was perceived irrelevance, a median of 45% of non-disclosed payments were directly or indirectly related to the work. A smaller monetary amount was the most common factor associated with nondisclosure.

Conclusions

Physician self-reports of financial COI are highly discrepant with objective data sources reporting payments from industry. Stronger policies are required to reduce reliance on physician self-reporting of financial COI and address non-compliance.

Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Systematic Review Authors Investigating Interventions for Achilles Tendon Ruptures

BACKGROUND

The primary aim of our study was to evaluate the effects of undisclosed financial conflicts of interest in Achilles tendon rupture repair-focused systematic reviews.

METHODS

Following a cross-sectional study design, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for Achilles tendon rupture repair systematic reviews. We performed screening and data extraction in a blind, triplicate fashion. Each systematic review was evaluated on the individual characteristics of the study, presence of undisclosed and disclosed conflicts of interest, favorability of results and conclusions, and the relationship between conflicts of interest and the favorability of results and conclusions.

RESULTS

Our search produced 172 total systematic reviews pertaining to Achilles tendon rupture repair; of those, only 12 were included in our study. Undisclosed conflicts of interest were found in half (6/12) of the included reviews. However, no significant association was found between conflict of interest and the favorability of results and conclusions.

CONCLUSION

Undisclosed conflicts of interests were discovered in a large percentage of our sample. This lack of disclosure did not appear to increase the likelihood of the systematic review results or conclusions reporting favorability of the intervention being investigated.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.