The Accuracy of Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures Reported by Plastic Surgeons and Industry:

Discrepancies in Financial Conflicts of Interest in Robotic Cardiothoracic Surgery Studies

BACKGROUND

In academic surgery publications, self-reporting of conflicts of interest (COI) has often proved to be inaccurate. Here, we review the accuracy of COI disclosures for studies related to the use of robotic technology in cardiothoracic surgery and evaluate factors associated with increased discrepancies.

METHODS

A literature search identified robotic surgery-related studies with at least 1 American author published between January 2015 and December 2020 from 3 major American cardiothoracic surgery journals (The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, and Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery). Industry payments from Intuitive Surgical (Intuitive) were collected with use of 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 the year prior (24-month period).

RESULTS

A total of 144 studies (764 authors) were identified. At least 1 author of 112 studies (78%) had received payments from Intuitive. At least 1 author of 98 studies (68%) had received an undeclared payment from Intuitive. Authors who accurately disclosed payments received significantly higher median payments compared with authors who did not ($16,511 [interquartile range, $6389-$159,035] vs $1762 [interquartile range, $338-$7500]; P < .0001). Last authors were significantly more likely to have a COI discrepancy compared with middle and first authors (P = .018; P = .0015).

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies investigating the use of robotic technology in cardiothoracic surgery did not accurately declare COI with Intuitive. This study highlights the need for improved accuracy of reporting industry sponsorship by publishing authors.

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.

Industry Payments to Plastic Surgeons: What Has Changed Over the Last 6 Years Following Implementation of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act?

BACKGROUND

The Open Payments Program, as designated by the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, is the single largest repository of industry payments made to licensed physicians within the United States. Though sizeable in its dataset, the database and user interface are limited in their ability to permit expansive data interpretation and summarization.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to comprehensively compare industry payments made to plastic surgeons with payments made to all surgeons and all physicians to elucidate industry relationships since implementation.

METHODS

The Open Payments Database was queried between 2014 and 2019, and inclusion criteria were applied. These data were evaluated in aggregate and for yearly totals, payment type, and geographic distribution.

RESULTS

A total 61,000,728 unique payments totaling $11,815,248,549 were identified over the 6-year study period; 9089 plastic surgeons, 121,151 surgeons, and 796,260 total physicians received these payments. Plastic surgeons annually received significantly less payment than all surgeons (P = 0.0005). However, plastic surgeons did not receive significantly more payment than all physicians (P = 0.0840). Cash and cash equivalents proved to be the most common form of payment; stock and stock options were least commonly transferred. Plastic surgeons in Tennessee received the most in payments between 2014 and 2019 (mean $76,420.75). California had the greatest number of plastic surgeons who received payments (1452 surgeons).

CONCLUSIONS

Plastic surgeons received more in industry payments than the average of all physicians but received less than all surgeons. The most common payment was cash transactions. Over the past 6 years, geographic trends in industry payments have remained stable.

Assessment of Financial Conflicts of Interest Related to the Use of Dermal Substitutes in Burn Management

This study aims to systematically review the accuracy of the self-reporting of conflicts of interest (COI) among studies related to the use of dermal substitute products in burn management and evaluate factors associated with increased discrepancies. To do so, a literature search was done to identify studies investigating the use of dermal substitutes in burn management published between 2015 - 2019. Industry payments were collected using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database. Declared COI were then compared with the listed payments. Studies and authors were considered to have a COI if they received payments totaling >$100 for each company. A total of 51 studies (322 authors) were included for analysis. Thirty-eight studies (75%) had at least one author received an undisclosed payment from industry. From 2015 to 2019, 1391 general payments (totaling $1,696,848) and 108 research payments (totaling $1,849,537) were made by 82 companies. When increasing the threshold on what would be considered an undisclosed payment, the proportion of authors with discrepancies gradually decreased, from 88% of authors with undisclosed payments >$100 to 27% of authors with undisclosed payments >$10,000. Author order, journal impact factor, and study type were not significantly associated with increased risk of discrepancy. We found that the majority of studies investigating the use of dermal substitute products for burn management did not accurately declare COI, highlighting the need for a uniform declaration process and greater transparency of industry sponsorship by authors when publishing peer-reviewed burn surgery research papers.

Pushing the Needle of Entrepreneurship and Innovation: Where Do Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons Stand?

Background:

Plastic and reconstructive surgery has a well-recognized history of disruption and innovation. It remains unclear, however, how the specialty’s priority on innovation materializes into commercialization or bench to bedside led by plastic surgeons.

Methods:

Our analysis utilized Pitchbook (Seattle, Wash.), a market database of companies and investors, for ventures that have designed innovations related to plastic and reconstructive surgery. Companies were categorized into 5 focus areas: provider (outpatient surgical or hospital entity), aesthetics (cosmetics/injectables), devices (instrumentation, lasers, implants), regenerative medicine (tissue engineering/wound healing), and software (digital solutions). Company websites, LinkedIn (Sunnyvale, Calif.) profiles, and Crunchbase (San Francisco, Calif.) were reviewed to determine the leadership roles of plastic surgeons.

Results:

Plastic surgeons primarily serve as advisors, as opposed to founders or chief executive officers (CEOs). Our analysis additionally found that provider and software solutions had a greater degree of plastic surgeon-led leadership, whereas regenerative medicine and device innovation remains less frequented. There was a relatively balanced representation of academic and private plastic surgeons in entrepreneurial pursuits.

Conclusions:

Plastic surgeons typically serve as board advisors, as opposed to founders and CEOs. Reasons for disengagement from leadership roles may include satisfaction with clinical work, time constraint, lack of business knowledge, financial constraint, and opportunity cost associated with starting a venture. To promote participation in innovation, future studies should explore tangible ways to engage in such opportunities. In doing so, plastic surgeons can own the “organ” of innovation, and continue to contribute to the legacy and the advancement of the specialty.

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.

The Policies for the Disclosure of Funding and Conflict of Interest in Surgery Journals: A Cross-Sectional Survey

BACKGROUND

Industry through its funding of research and through its relationships with study authors can influence the results of research. Most journals have policies for reporting funding and disclosing conflict of interest (COI) to mitigate the influence of industry on research. The objective of this study is to assess the policies of surgery journals for the reporting of funding and the disclosure of COI.

METHODS

We described the prevalence and characteristics of funding and COI policies of journals indexed under "Surgery" in the Journal Citation Reports. We extracted data from publicly available information and through simulation of manuscript submission.

RESULTS

Of the 186 eligible journals, 171 (92%) had policies for reporting of funding. None of the policies described procedures to deal with non-reporting or underreporting of funding. Of the 186 journals, 183 (99%) had a policy for disclosure of COI. All journals with a COI policy required disclosure of financial interest, while 96 (52%) required the disclosure of non-financial interests. Only 24 (13%) policies described how non-disclosure of COI affects the editorial process, and none described procedures to verify COI disclosure. Of the policies that required disclosing COI, 94 (51%) also required reporting the source of financial COI.

CONCLUSIONS

Most journals have policies for reporting of funding and disclosure of financial COI. However, many do not have clear policies for disclosing non-financial COI. Major limitations in the policies include the lack of processes for the verification of disclosed interests and for dealing with underreporting of funding and of COI.

Assessing concordance of financial conflicts of interest disclosures with payments' databases: a systematic survey of the health literature

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study is to review the literature for studies that assessed the concordance of financial conflicts of interest disclosures with payments' databases and evaluate their methods.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a systematic survey of the health literature to identify eligible studies. We searched both Medline and EMBASE up to February 2017. We conducted study selection, data abstraction, and methodological quality assessment in duplicate and independently using standardized forms. We subcategorized 'nonconcordant disclosures' as either 'partially nonconcordant' or 'completely nonconcordant'. The main outcome was the percentage of authors with 'nonconcordant' disclosures. We summarized results by three levels of analysis: authors, companies, and studies.

RESULTS

We identified 27 eligible journal articles. The top two types of documents assessed were published articles (n = 13) and published guidelines (n = 9). The most commonly used payment database was the Open Payments Database (n = 16). The median percentage of authors with 'nonconcordant' disclosures was 81%; the median percentage was 43% for 'completely nonconcordant' disclosures. The percentage of 'nonconcordant' conflict of interest (COI) reporting by companies varied between 23% and 85%. The methods of concordance assessment, as well as the labeling and definitions of assessed outcomes varied widely across the included studies. We judged three of the included studies as high-quality studies.

CONCLUSION

Underreporting of health science researchers' financial COIs is pervasive. Studies assessing COI underreporting suffer from a number of limitations that could have overestimated their findings.

Drivers of the opioid crisis: An appraisal of financial conflicts of interest in clinical practice guideline panels at the peak of opioid prescribing

Background

Starting in the late 1990s, the pharmaceutical industry sought to increase prescribing of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Influencing the content of clinical practice guidelines may have been one strategy industry employed. In this study we assessed potential risk of bias from financial conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry in guidelines for opioid prescribing for chronic non-cancer pain published between 2007 and 2013, the peak of opioid prescribing.

Methods

We used the Guideline Panel Review (GPR) to appraise the guidelines included in the 2014 systematic review and critical appraisal by Nuckols et al. These were English language opioid prescribing guidelines for adults with chronic non-cancer pain published between July 2007 and July 2013, the peak of opioid prescribing. The GPR assigns red flags to items known to introduce potential bias from financial conflicts of interest. We operationalized the GPR by creating specific definitions for each red flag. Two reviewers independently evaluated each guideline. Disagreements were resolved with discussion. We also compared our score to the critical appraisal scores for overall quality from the study by Nuckols et al.

Results

We appraised 13 guidelines, which received 43 red flags in total. Guidelines had 3.3 red flags on average (out of a possible seven) with range from one to six. Four guidelines had missing information, so red flags may be higher than reported. The guidelines with the highest and second highest scores for overall quality in the 2014 critical appraisal by Nuckols et al. had five and three red flags, respectively.

Conclusion

Our findings reveal that the guidelines for opioid prescribing chronic non-cancer pain from 2007 to 2013 were at risk of bias because of pervasive conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry and a paucity of mechanisms to address bias. Even highly-rated guidelines examined in a 2014 systematic review and critical appraisal had many red flags.

Author Disclosures in Plastic Surgery Journals Compared With Information Reported in the Open Payments Database: How Open Are We?

BACKGROUND

Relationships between companies in the biomedical industry and authors submitting scientific articles for publication has been an issue of some concern for many years. It has been frequently demonstrated that these financial relationships can influence the manner in which research findings are presented. The National Physician Payment Transparency Program, also known as the Open Payment Program or the Sunshine Act, was legislated to expose potential conflicts of interest (COIs). Likewise, most peer-reviewed journals require disclosure of any potential COIs.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this paper was to compare the information published in the Open Payment Database to authors' self-disclosed COIs in their published articles.

METHODS

An analysis was performed by one of the authors (P.S.B.) of all articles published in Aesthetic Surgery Journal (ASJ) and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) from August 2013 through December 2016. Financial disclosures reported in these articles were compared with the physician payment information provided by the biomedical industry and published in the Open Payments Database in 2013 and 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 1346 articles were included in the study, from which 320 authors and 899 total authorships were eligible for analysis. Out of 782 authorships with noted discrepancies, 96% were related to potential COIs found in the Open Payments database but not disclosed in the journal publication.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest major discordance between authors' self-reported COIs in the plastic surgery literature and industry payments published in the Open Payments database.

The "Game of Implants": A Perspective on the Crisis-Prone History of Breast Implants

Since their introduction into the market, breast implants have been the subject of many controversies. It is timely to examine the forces that have shaped the breast implant industry to make it what it is today. This review will concentrate more on the use of implants in aesthetic surgery rather than their use in breast reconstruction, but some of the factors have relevance to both indications.