Kopelman Andrew M, Gorelick David A, Appelbaum Paul S
Department of Psychiatry, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, USA.
J Nerv Ment Dis. 2013 Feb;201(2):84-7. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0b013e31827f6248.
To characterize disclosures of conflicts of interest in review articles in psychiatry, we identified 285 reviews from 10 high-impact journals in psychiatry and 2 in general medicine. Disclosures were reliably coded as biotechnology/pharmaceutical/other material interests, nonprofit/government, communication companies, or other. The authors in both types of journals frequently reported industry ties. However, the reviews in the psychiatric journals were significantly less likely to include industry-related disclosures (32% of the reviews; 18% of the authors) compared with the general medical journals (64% of the articles; 40% of the authors). The most common types of industry-related disclosures were for consulting, research support, and speaking fees. Disclosures seemed to be of limited utility in helping readers assess possible biases because the nature and the extent of the relationships being disclosed were often unclear. Efforts to screen out authors with significant financial relationships pertaining to the topic under review may be more effective than are disclosures in protecting the integrity of the medical literature.
为了描述精神病学综述文章中利益冲突的披露情况，我们从10种高影响力的精神病学期刊和2种普通医学期刊中筛选出285篇综述。披露信息被可靠地编码为生物技术/制药/其他物质利益、非营利组织/政府、通信公司或其他。两类期刊的作者都经常报告与行业的联系。然而，与普通医学期刊（64%的文章；40%的作者）相比，精神病学期刊中的综述包含与行业相关披露的可能性显著更低（32%的综述；18%的作者）。与行业相关披露的最常见类型是咨询、研究支持和演讲费。披露在帮助读者评估可能的偏倚方面似乎作用有限，因为所披露关系的性质和程度往往不明确。在保护医学文献的完整性方面，筛选出与所审查主题存在重大财务关系的作者可能比披露更有效。
