Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Womens Health (Lond). 2020 Jan-Dec;16:1745506520969616. doi: 10.1177/1745506520969616.
Doctors who research and provide abortion care have had their work characterized as a conflict of interest. We investigated whether surgeons who perform medical procedures other than abortion also routinely conduct research on that procedure and whether they disclose this as a relevant "conflict of interest."
We conducted a two-step literature review of five medical procedures-abortion, rhinoplasty, Mohs micrographic surgery, transurethral resection of the prostate, and laminectomy. We identified articles published between June 2011 and May 2012, and we calculated the proportion of articles authored by clinicians who also perform that procedure as well as the percentage that reported clinical care as a conflict of interest. We then screened conflict of interest statements on publications on said procedures from the same journals between 2012 and 2019 and calculated the proportion of publications that reported clinical work as a conflict of interest.
We identified 135 publications that met inclusion criteria. We calculated that 100% of publications on rhinoplasty, transurethral resection of the prostate, and Mohs included a clinician who performs that procedure. Seventy-five percent of publications on laminectomy and 78% of publications on abortion included a clinician. None of the reviewed research articles included a disclosure that the authors also performed the procedure. From 2012 to 2019, there were 1,903 published articles on these procedures. None included a conflict of interest that disclosed clinical work as a conflict of interest.
Although abortion providers publish as clinician-researchers at rates similar to surgeons in other areas of medicine, they alone face accusations that their clinical expertise is a potential conflict of interest. This stigmatizing practice could have wide-ranging consequences including delegitimization of the scientific method and peer review process broadly.
研究并提供堕胎服务的医生的工作被认为存在利益冲突。我们调查了进行堕胎以外其他医疗程序的外科医生是否也经常对该程序进行研究，以及他们是否将其披露为相关的“利益冲突”。
我们对五种医疗程序（堕胎、鼻整形术、Mohs 显微外科手术、经尿道前列腺切除术和椎板切除术）进行了两步文献回顾。我们确定了 2011 年 6 月至 2012 年 5 月期间发表的文章，并计算了由同时进行该程序的临床医生撰写的文章比例，以及报告临床护理为利益冲突的百分比。然后，我们筛选了同一期刊在 2012 年至 2019 年期间发表的关于上述程序的出版物中的利益冲突声明，并计算了报告临床工作为利益冲突的出版物比例。
我们确定了符合纳入标准的 135 篇出版物。我们计算得出，鼻整形术、经尿道前列腺切除术和 Mohs 显微外科手术的出版物 100%由进行该程序的临床医生撰写。75%的椎板切除术出版物和 78%的堕胎出版物包括一名临床医生。在审查的研究文章中，没有一篇文章披露作者也进行了该程序。2012 年至 2019 年期间，这些程序的出版物有 1903 篇。没有一篇文章包含披露临床工作为利益冲突的利益冲突声明。
尽管堕胎提供者以临床医生-研究人员的身份发表文章的比例与医学其他领域的外科医生相似，但他们却独自面临着他们的临床专业知识可能存在利益冲突的指责。这种污名化的做法可能会产生广泛的后果，包括广泛地使科学方法和同行评审过程失去合法性。
