A literature review of non-financial conflicts of interest in healthcare research and publication.

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
David Bauer, Devin A Orchard, Philip G Day, Marc Tunzi, David J Satin
{"title":"A literature review of non-financial conflicts of interest in healthcare research and publication.","authors":"David Bauer, Devin A Orchard, Philip G Day, Marc Tunzi, David J Satin","doi":"10.1186/s12910-025-01221-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Conflicts of interest (COIs) in healthcare research have received substantial attention over the past three decades. Although financial COI (FCOI) has an extensive literature, publications about non-financial COI (NFCOI) are comparatively rare. Disagreements surrounding the importance of NFCOIs in research and publication, including whether competing non-financial interests should even be considered COIs, present significant gaps in the literature. This lack of clarity prompted our literature review's aim to determine the current consensus about how NFCOIs should be treated in healthcare research and publication.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched the PubMed database using MeSH terms and keywords to identify articles published before November 6, 2023 about NFCOI in biomedical research and publication. We applied relevance, appropriateness, transparency, and soundness (RATS) criteria to develop a final dataset of 206 publications and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram. Qualitative and quantitative analyses revealed major themes and conclusions regarding consensus within the field.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The literature centers around fundamental disagreements about (1) whether competing non-financial interests constitute COIs like FCOIs, (2) whether they need to be addressed in research, and (3) whether they should be managed with disclosure or with other strategies. Despite these disagreements, the balance of evidence and arguments suggests that (1) NFCOIs are meaningful conceptual entities like FCOIs [96%], (2) they require management [76%], and (3) disclosure is necessary but insufficient [55%] or necessary and sufficient [27%] as a management strategy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The topic of NFCOI enjoys far less attention and consensus compared to FCOI's robust body of literature developed over decades. We found general agreement about the relevance of NFCOIs and the need to address them, but not how to do so. Our results are consistent with Wiersma et al., the first review on this topic. Taken together, these reviews suggest a path forward for researchers, publishers, and healthcare professionals requiring new approaches for NFCOI management.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"26 1","pages":"61"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12080049/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01221-5","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Conflicts of interest (COIs) in healthcare research have received substantial attention over the past three decades. Although financial COI (FCOI) has an extensive literature, publications about non-financial COI (NFCOI) are comparatively rare. Disagreements surrounding the importance of NFCOIs in research and publication, including whether competing non-financial interests should even be considered COIs, present significant gaps in the literature. This lack of clarity prompted our literature review's aim to determine the current consensus about how NFCOIs should be treated in healthcare research and publication.

Methods: We searched the PubMed database using MeSH terms and keywords to identify articles published before November 6, 2023 about NFCOI in biomedical research and publication. We applied relevance, appropriateness, transparency, and soundness (RATS) criteria to develop a final dataset of 206 publications and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram. Qualitative and quantitative analyses revealed major themes and conclusions regarding consensus within the field.

Results: The literature centers around fundamental disagreements about (1) whether competing non-financial interests constitute COIs like FCOIs, (2) whether they need to be addressed in research, and (3) whether they should be managed with disclosure or with other strategies. Despite these disagreements, the balance of evidence and arguments suggests that (1) NFCOIs are meaningful conceptual entities like FCOIs [96%], (2) they require management [76%], and (3) disclosure is necessary but insufficient [55%] or necessary and sufficient [27%] as a management strategy.

Conclusion: The topic of NFCOI enjoys far less attention and consensus compared to FCOI's robust body of literature developed over decades. We found general agreement about the relevance of NFCOIs and the need to address them, but not how to do so. Our results are consistent with Wiersma et al., the first review on this topic. Taken together, these reviews suggest a path forward for researchers, publishers, and healthcare professionals requiring new approaches for NFCOI management.

医疗保健研究和出版中非财务利益冲突的文献综述。
背景:在过去的三十年中,医疗保健研究中的利益冲突(COIs)受到了极大的关注。虽然金融COI (FCOI)有广泛的文献,但关于非金融COI (NFCOI)的出版物相对较少。围绕nfcoi在研究和出版中的重要性的分歧,包括竞争的非经济利益是否应该被视为coi,在文献中存在重大差距。由于缺乏明确性,我们的文献综述的目的是确定目前关于NFCOIs在医疗研究和出版中应如何处理的共识。方法:利用MeSH检索PubMed数据库,检索2023年11月6日之前发表的关于生物医学研究和出版中NFCOI的文章。我们应用相关性、适当性、透明度和稳健性(RATS)标准开发了206篇出版物的最终数据集,并使用系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)流程图进行了报告。定性和定量分析揭示了关于该领域内共识的主要主题和结论。结果:文献集中在以下几个基本分歧上:(1)相互竞争的非金融利益是否构成像fcoi一样的coi;(2)它们是否需要在研究中解决;(3)它们是否应该通过披露或其他策略进行管理。尽管存在这些分歧,但证据和论点的平衡表明:(1)nfcoi是有意义的概念性实体,就像fcoi一样[96%],(2)它们需要管理[76%],(3)作为一种管理策略,披露是必要但不足的[55%]或必要且充分的[27%]。结论:与几十年来FCOI的大量文献相比,NFCOI的话题受到的关注和共识要少得多。我们对nfcoi的相关性和解决这些问题的必要性达成了普遍共识,但对如何解决这些问题却没有达成共识。我们的结果与Wiersma等人一致,这是关于该主题的第一篇综述。综上所述,这些综述为需要NFCOI管理新方法的研究人员、出版商和医疗保健专业人员提供了一条前进的道路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信