• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Financial conflicts of interest of clinicians making submissions to the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review: a descriptive study.临床医生在向加拿大泛癌症药物审查机构提交申请时的财务利益冲突:一项描述性研究。
BMJ Open. 2019 Jul 26;9(7):e030750. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030750.
2
Characteristics of clinician input in Canadian funding decisions for cancer drugs: a cross-sectional study based on CADTH reimbursement recommendations.加拿大癌症药物资助决策中临床医生投入的特点:基于 CADTH 报销建议的横断面研究。
BMJ Open. 2023 Oct 16;13(10):e066378. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066378.
3
Association between commercial funding of Canadian patient groups and their views about funding of medicines: An observational study.加拿大患者群体的商业资助与其对药品资助看法之间的关联:一项观察性研究。
PLoS One. 2019 Feb 15;14(2):e0212399. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212399. eCollection 2019.
4
Evaluation of the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Submitted for Reimbursement Recommendation Decisions in Canada.对提交用于加拿大报销推荐决策的癌症药物临床益处的评估。
JAMA Intern Med. 2021 Apr 1;181(4):499-508. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.8588.
5
Conditional approval of cancer drugs in Canada: accountability and impact on public funding.加拿大癌症药物有条件批准:问责制与对公共资金的影响。
Curr Oncol. 2019 Feb;26(1):e100-e105. doi: 10.3747/co.26.4397. Epub 2019 Feb 1.
6
Health-related quality of life in oncology drug reimbursement submissions in Canada: A review of submissions to the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review.加拿大肿瘤药物报销申请中的健康相关生活质量:对全加肿瘤药物审查的申请评估。
Cancer. 2020 Jan 1;126(1):148-155. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32455. Epub 2019 Sep 23.
7
Impact of rarity on Canadian oncology health technology assessment and funding.罕见性对加拿大肿瘤学卫生技术评估及资金投入的影响。
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020 Aug 11:1-6. doi: 10.1017/S0266462320000483.
8
Determinants of the Cancer Drug Funding Process in Canada.加拿大癌症药物资助流程的决定因素。
Curr Oncol. 2022 Mar 15;29(3):1997-2007. doi: 10.3390/curroncol29030162.
9
New Cancer Drug Approvals From the Perspective of a Universal Healthcare System: Analyses of the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review Recommendations.从全民医疗保健系统的角度看新癌症药物的审批:对全加肿瘤药物评审建议的分析。
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018 Dec;16(12):1460-1466. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2018.7084.
10
Are We Making a Difference? A Qualitative Study of Patient Engagement at the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review: Perspectives of Patient Groups.我们是否产生了影响?一项关于泛加肿瘤药物评审中患者参与度的定性研究:患者群体的观点。
Value Health. 2020 Sep;23(9):1157-1162. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2020.06.003. Epub 2020 Aug 7.

引用本文的文献

1
Characteristics of clinician input in Canadian funding decisions for cancer drugs: a cross-sectional study based on CADTH reimbursement recommendations.加拿大癌症药物资助决策中临床医生投入的特点:基于 CADTH 报销建议的横断面研究。
BMJ Open. 2023 Oct 16;13(10):e066378. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066378.
2
Interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and the practice, knowledge and beliefs of medical oncologists and clinical haematologists: a systematic review.与制药行业的互动以及肿瘤内科医生和血液科临床医生的实践、知识和信念:系统评价。
Br J Cancer. 2022 Jan;126(1):144-161. doi: 10.1038/s41416-021-01552-1. Epub 2021 Oct 1.
3
Describing Sources of Uncertainty in Cancer Drug Formulary Priority Setting across Canada.描述加拿大癌症药物处方集优先设置中不确定性的来源。
Curr Oncol. 2021 Jul 17;28(4):2708-2719. doi: 10.3390/curroncol28040236.
4
Conflicts of interest in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: associations with recommendations.临床指南、顾问委员会报告、观点文章和叙述性评论中的利益冲突:与建议的关联。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Dec 8;12(12):MR000040. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000040.pub3.

本文引用的文献

1
Undisclosed financial ties between guideline writers and pharmaceutical companies: a cross-sectional study across 10 disease categories.指南制定者与制药公司之间未披露的财务关系:跨越 10 个疾病类别的横断面研究。
BMJ Open. 2019 Feb 5;9(2):e025864. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025864.
2
Prevalence of Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Clinical Guidelines Related to High-Revenue Medications.高收益药物相关临床指南作者的财务利益冲突发生率。
JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Dec 1;178(12):1712-1715. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.5106.
3
The Effects of Public Disclosure of Industry Payments to Physicians on Patient Trust: A Randomized Experiment.公开披露药企向医师支付款项对患者信任的影响:一项随机实验
J Gen Intern Med. 2017 Nov;32(11):1186-1192. doi: 10.1007/s11606-017-4122-y. Epub 2017 Jul 17.
4
Variable Reporting by Authors Presenting Arthroplasty Research at Multiple Annual Conferences.在多个年度会议上发表关节置换术研究的作者的变量报告。
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Jan;32(1):315-319. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.05.068. Epub 2016 Jun 7.
5
Under-reporting of conflicts of interest among trialists: a cross-sectional study.试验者利益冲突报告不足:一项横断面研究。
J R Soc Med. 2015 Mar;108(3):101-7. doi: 10.1177/0141076814557878. Epub 2014 Nov 11.
6
Revisiting financial conflicts of interest in FDA advisory committees.重新审视美国食品药品监督管理局咨询委员会中的利益冲突问题。
Milbank Q. 2014 Sep;92(3):446-70. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12073.
7
What do Canadians think about physician-pharmaceutical industry interactions?加拿大人如何看待医生与制药行业的互动?
Health Policy. 2013 Oct;112(3):255-63. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.04.020. Epub 2013 May 24.
8
Pharmaceutical industry gifts to physicians: patient beliefs and trust in physicians and the health care system.制药业给医生的礼物:患者对医生和医疗保健系统的信任和信念。
J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Mar;27(3):274-9. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1760-3. Epub 2011 Jun 14.
9
The impact of disclosing financial ties in research and clinical care: a systematic review.在研究和临床医疗中披露经济关系的影响:一项系统综述
Arch Intern Med. 2010 Apr 26;170(8):675-82. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.39.
10
Consistency of financial interest disclosures in the biomedical literature: the case of coronary stents.生物医学文献中财务利益披露的一致性:以冠状动脉支架为例。
PLoS One. 2008 May 7;3(5):e2128. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002128.

临床医生在向加拿大泛癌症药物审查机构提交申请时的财务利益冲突:一项描述性研究。

Financial conflicts of interest of clinicians making submissions to the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review: a descriptive study.

机构信息

School of Health Policy & Management, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2019 Jul 26;9(7):e030750. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030750.

DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030750
PMID:31350254
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6661552/
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

This study examines financial conflict of interest (FCOI) of clinicians who made submissions to the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR), the arm of the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health that recommends whether oncology drug indications should be publicly funded. Final reports from pCODR published between October 2016 and February 2019 were examined.

DESIGN

Descriptive study.

DATA SOURCES

Website of pCODR.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

The primary outcome is the number of submissions declaring FCOI. Secondary outcomes are the number of times where clinicians agreed and disagreed with preliminary recommendation from pCODR and the association between the distribution of individual clinicians' FCOI and pCODR's funding recommendations.

RESULTS

There were 46 drug indication reports from pCODR. Clinicians made 261 submissions. Clinicians declared they received payments from companies 323 times and named 38 different companies making those payments a total of 500 times. Financial conflicts with drug companies were declared in 176 (66.3%) of all submissions. In 21 (45.7%) of the 46 drug indications, 50% or more of the clinicians had a conflict with the company making the drug. Clinicians commented on 37 preliminary recommendations. In all 25 where pCODR recommended funding or conditional funding, the clinicians either agreed or agreed in part. pCODR recommended that the drug indication not be funded 12 times and 9 times clinicians disagreed with that recommendation. The distribution of clinician responses was statistically significantly different depending on whether pCODR recommended funding/conditional funding or do not fund p<0.0001 (Fisher exact test). The distribution of clinicians' FCOI differed depending on whether the recommendation was fund/conditional fund or do not fund p=0.027 (Fisher exact test).

CONCLUSION

Financial conflicts with pharmaceutical companies are widespread among experts making submissions to the pCODR.

摘要

目的

本研究考察了向加拿大药品和技术评估机构(CADTH)下属的加拿大肿瘤药物综合评价机构(pCODR)提交申请的临床医生的财务利益冲突(FCOI)情况,该机构负责建议是否对肿瘤药物适应证进行公共资助。研究分析了 2016 年 10 月至 2019 年 2 月期间公布的 pCODR 的最终报告。

设计

描述性研究。

资料来源

pCODR 网站。

干预措施

无。

主要和次要结局

主要结局是申报 FCOI 的申请数量。次要结局是临床医生同意和不同意 pCODR 初步建议的次数,以及个别临床医生 FCOI 的分布与 pCODR 资助建议之间的关系。

结果

pCODR 共有 46 个药物适应证报告,临床医生提交了 261 份申请。临床医生申报他们从公司获得了 323 次付款,共涉及 38 家不同的公司,总计 500 次。在所有 261 份申请中,有 176 份(66.3%)申报了与制药公司的财务冲突。在 46 种药物适应证中的 21 种(45.7%),有 50%或更多的临床医生与生产该药物的公司存在冲突。临床医生对 37 项初步建议发表了评论。在所有 25 项 pCODR 建议资助或有条件资助的情况下,临床医生要么完全同意,要么部分同意。pCODR 建议不资助适应证 12 次,临床医生 9 次不同意该建议。根据 pCODR 是否建议资助/有条件资助或不资助,临床医生的反应分布存在统计学显著差异(p<0.0001,Fisher 精确检验)。根据建议是资助/有条件资助还是不资助,临床医生的 FCOI 分布也存在统计学显著差异(p=0.027,Fisher 精确检验)。

结论

向 pCODR 提交申请的专家与制药公司存在广泛的财务利益冲突。