Department of Surgery, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Center for Surgical Trials and Evidence-Based Practice (C-STEP), McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Mar;34(3):429-434. doi: 10.1007/s11606-018-4784-0. Epub 2019 Jan 2.
Financial interactions between industry and healthcare providers are reportable. Substantial discrepancies have been detected between industry and self-report of these conflicts of interest (COIs).
Our aim was to determine if authors who fail to disclose reportable COI are more likely to publish findings that are favorable to industry than authors with no COI.
In this blinded, observational study of medical and surgical primary research articles in PubMed, 590 articles were reviewed.
Reportable financial relationships between authors and industry were evaluated. COIs were considered to have relevance if they were associated with the product(s) mentioned by an article. Primary outcome was favorability, defined as an impression favorable to the product(s) discussed by an article and determined by 3 independent, blinded clinicians for each article. Primary analysis compared Incomplete Self-Disclosure to No COI. Two-level multivariable mixed-effects ordered logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with favorability.
A 69% discordance rate existed between industry and self-report in COI disclosure. When authors failed to disclose COI, their conclusions were more likely to favor industry partners than authors without COI (favorable ratings 73% versus 62%, RR 1.18, p = < 0.001). On univariate (any COI 74% versus no COI 62%, RR 1.11, p = < 0.001) and multivariable analyses, any COI was associated with favorability.
All financial COIs (disclosed or undisclosed, relevant or not relevant, research or non-research) influence whether studies report findings favorable to industry sponsors.
行业与医疗保健提供者之间的财务往来需要报告。已发现行业与这些利益冲突(COI)的自我报告之间存在很大差异。
我们的目的是确定未披露应报告的 COI 的作者是否比没有 COI 的作者更有可能发表对行业有利的发现。
在这项针对 PubMed 中医学和外科主要研究文章的盲、观察性研究中,共审查了 590 篇文章。
评估作者与行业之间的可报告财务关系。如果 COI 与文章中提到的产品相关,则认为其具有相关性。主要结果是有利性,定义为文章对所讨论产品的有利印象,并由每篇文章的 3 位独立、盲法临床医生确定。主要分析比较了不完整的自我披露与无 COI。使用两水平多变量混合效应有序逻辑回归评估与有利性相关的因素。
COI 披露方面存在 69%的不一致率。当作者未披露 COI 时,他们的结论更倾向于支持没有 COI 的作者(有利评价 73%对 62%,RR 1.18,p < 0.001)。在单变量(任何 COI 为 74%,无 COI 为 62%,RR 1.11,p < 0.001)和多变量分析中,任何 COI 都与有利性相关。
所有财务 COI(披露或未披露、相关或不相关、研究或非研究)都会影响研究是否报告对行业赞助商有利的发现。