Suppr超能文献

在评估研究时考虑财务关系。

Taking financial relationships into account when assessing research.

机构信息

National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, USA.

出版信息

Account Res. 2013;20(3):184-205. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2013.788383.

Abstract

Many scientific journals, government agencies, and universities require disclosure of sources of funding and financial interests related to research, such as stock ownership, consulting arrangements with companies, and patents. Although disclosure has become one of the central approaches for responding to financial conflicts of interest (COIs) in research, critics contend that information about financial COIs does not serve as a reliable indicator of research credibility, and therefore, studies should be evaluated solely based on their scientific merits. We argue that, while it is indeed important to evaluate studies on their scientific merits, it is often difficult to detect significant influences of financial relationships that affect research credibility. Moreover, at least five factors can be examined to determine whether financial relationships are likely to enhance, undermine, or have no impact on the credibility of research. These include as follows: whether sponsors, institutions, or researchers have a significant financial stake in the outcome of a study; whether the financial interests of the sponsors, institutions, or researchers coincide with the goal of conducting research that is objective and reliable; whether the sponsor, institution, or researchers have a history of biasing research in order to promote their financial goals; how easy it is to manipulate the research in order to achieve financial goals; and whether oversight mechanisms are in place which are designed to minimize bias. Since these factors vary from case to case, evaluating the impact of financial relationships depends on the circumstances. In some situations, one may decide that the financial relationships significantly undermine the study's credibility; in others, one may decide that they have no impact on credibility or even enhance it.

摘要

许多科学期刊、政府机构和大学都要求披露与研究相关的资金来源和财务利益,例如股票所有权、与公司的咨询安排以及专利。尽管披露已成为应对研究中财务利益冲突(COI)的核心方法之一,但批评者认为,有关财务 COI 的信息并不能作为研究可信度的可靠指标,因此,研究应该仅基于其科学价值进行评估。我们认为,虽然评估研究的科学价值确实很重要,但通常很难发现影响研究可信度的财务关系的重大影响。此外,至少有五个因素可以用来确定财务关系是否可能增强、破坏或对研究的可信度没有影响。这些因素包括以下几点:赞助商、机构或研究人员是否在研究结果中有重大财务利益;赞助商、机构或研究人员的财务利益是否与进行客观可靠研究的目标一致;赞助商、机构或研究人员是否有歪曲研究以促进其财务目标的历史;是否容易操纵研究以实现财务目标;以及是否有设计用于最小化偏见的监督机制。由于这些因素因情况而异,因此评估财务关系的影响取决于具体情况。在某些情况下,人们可能会认为财务关系严重破坏了研究的可信度;在其他情况下,人们可能会认为它们对可信度没有影响,甚至会增强可信度。

相似文献

1
Taking financial relationships into account when assessing research.
Account Res. 2013;20(3):184-205. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2013.788383.
2
Scientific journals and their authors' financial interests: a pilot study.
Psychother Psychosom. 1998 Jul-Oct;67(4-5):194-201. doi: 10.1159/000012281.
3
Assessing faculty financial relationships with industry: A case study.
JAMA. 2000 Nov 1;284(17):2209-14. doi: 10.1001/jama.284.17.2209.
4
5
American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement: oversight of clinical research.
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jun 15;21(12):2377-86. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.04.026. Epub 2003 Apr 29.
6
Guidelines, editors, pharma and the biological paradigm shift.
Mens Sana Monogr. 2007 Jan;5(1):27-30. doi: 10.4103/0973-1229.32176.
7
Financial interest and its disclosure in scientific publications.
JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):225-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.225.
8
Institutional Conflicts of Interest in Academic Research.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Dec;25(6):1661-1669. doi: 10.1007/s11948-015-9702-9. Epub 2015 Oct 7.

引用本文的文献

4
Disclosing and Managing Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest in Scientific Publications.
Res Ethics. 2023 Apr;19(2):121-138. doi: 10.1177/17470161221148387. Epub 2023 Jan 12.
8
Authorship Issues When Articles are Retracted Due to Research Misconduct and Then Resubmitted.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2022 Jul 7;28(4):31. doi: 10.1007/s11948-022-00386-1.
9
Open Science in regulatory environmental risk assessment.
Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2021 Nov;17(6):1229-1242. doi: 10.1002/ieam.4433. Epub 2021 May 18.

本文引用的文献

1
A randomized study of how physicians interpret research funding disclosures.
N Engl J Med. 2012 Sep 20;367(12):1119-27. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1202397.
2
Mitigating conflicts of interest in chemical safety testing.
Environ Sci Technol. 2012 Aug 7;46(15):7937-8. doi: 10.1021/es3028296. Epub 2012 Jul 27.
3
A comparison of DSM-IV and DSM-5 panel members' financial associations with industry: a pernicious problem persists.
PLoS Med. 2012;9(3):e1001190. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001190. Epub 2012 Mar 13.
4
Information Quality in Regulatory Decision Making: Peer Review versus Good Laboratory Practice.
Environ Health Perspect. 2012 Jul;120(7):927-34. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1104277. Epub 2012 Feb 17.
5
The unintended consequences of conflict of interest disclosure.
JAMA. 2012 Feb 15;307(7):669-70. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.154.
6
Intention-to-treat concept: A review.
Perspect Clin Res. 2011 Jul;2(3):109-12. doi: 10.4103/2229-3485.83221.
8
Plant plastid engineering.
Curr Genomics. 2010 Nov;11(7):500-12. doi: 10.2174/138920210793175912.
9
Those who have the gold make the evidence: how the pharmaceutical industry biases the outcomes of clinical trials of medications.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2012 Jun;18(2):247-61. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9265-3. Epub 2011 Feb 15.
10
Enhancing credibility of chemical safety studies: emerging consensus on key assessment criteria.
Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Jun;119(6):757-64. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1002737. Epub 2010 Dec 15.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验