支气管镜研究中的利益冲突--自我报告是否足够?

IF 9.5 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Chest Pub Date : 2024-10-17 DOI:10.1016/j.chest.2024.10.006
Kaele M Leonard,Timothy A Khalil,Jacob Welch,Greta Dahlberg,Ankush Ratwani,Jennifer D Duke,Rafael Paez,Elisa J Gordon,Samira Shojaee,Robert J Lentz,Fabien Maldonado
{"title":"支气管镜研究中的利益冲突--自我报告是否足够?","authors":"Kaele M Leonard,Timothy A Khalil,Jacob Welch,Greta Dahlberg,Ankush Ratwani,Jennifer D Duke,Rafael Paez,Elisa J Gordon,Samira Shojaee,Robert J Lentz,Fabien Maldonado","doi":"10.1016/j.chest.2024.10.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nRobotic assisted bronchoscopy has been enthusiastically adopted in the U.S. and transformed the management of patients with indeterminate pulmonary nodules. Unprecedented industry investments in research, development, and marketing have profoundly affected the bronchoscopy landscape, leading to concerns that conflicts of interest could influence the validity of bronchoscopy studies. Disclosures of conflicts of interest in research are predicated on open and transparent self-reporting.\r\n\r\nRESEARCH QUESTION\r\nAre self-reported relevant conflicts of interest in articles pertaining to robotic assisted bronchoscopy accurate when compared to publicly available payments on the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services' Open Payments Database?\r\n\r\nSTUDY DESIGN AND METHODS\r\nAll articles pertaining to robotic assisted bronchoscopy indexed on PubMed between 2016 and 2022 were screened for relevance. Articles appearing in the five journals with the most relevant publications were selected. General, research, and associated research payments reported in the Open Payments Database were recorded for each US physician-author with available data. \"Relevant payments\" refer to transactions made to authors by bronchoscopy-related companies. Documentation of all payments involving these companies during the three years prior to an article's submission date was obtained. These payments were compared to the self-reported conflicts of interest for each author, per article, and the number and value of payments were categorized and totaled.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nTwenty-seven articles were included, accounting for 75 U.S. physicians with data reported in the Open Payments Database. Of the $17 million in relevant payments reported, $9.9 million were not disclosed (57%). Sixty-eight of 75 (91%) of authors had incomplete physician disclosures. Excluding food and beverage payments, sixty authors had incomplete disclosures (80%).\r\n\r\nINTERPRETATION\r\nRelevant conflicts of interest appear to be inconsistently disclosed in publications on robotic assisted bronchoscopy, suggesting self-reporting may be an insufficient strategy. A centralized disclosure process that is automated or easier to use should be considered.","PeriodicalId":9782,"journal":{"name":"Chest","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conflicts of Interest in Bronchoscopy Research - Is Self-Reporting Sufficient?\",\"authors\":\"Kaele M Leonard,Timothy A Khalil,Jacob Welch,Greta Dahlberg,Ankush Ratwani,Jennifer D Duke,Rafael Paez,Elisa J Gordon,Samira Shojaee,Robert J Lentz,Fabien Maldonado\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.chest.2024.10.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\r\\nRobotic assisted bronchoscopy has been enthusiastically adopted in the U.S. and transformed the management of patients with indeterminate pulmonary nodules. Unprecedented industry investments in research, development, and marketing have profoundly affected the bronchoscopy landscape, leading to concerns that conflicts of interest could influence the validity of bronchoscopy studies. Disclosures of conflicts of interest in research are predicated on open and transparent self-reporting.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESEARCH QUESTION\\r\\nAre self-reported relevant conflicts of interest in articles pertaining to robotic assisted bronchoscopy accurate when compared to publicly available payments on the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services' Open Payments Database?\\r\\n\\r\\nSTUDY DESIGN AND METHODS\\r\\nAll articles pertaining to robotic assisted bronchoscopy indexed on PubMed between 2016 and 2022 were screened for relevance. Articles appearing in the five journals with the most relevant publications were selected. General, research, and associated research payments reported in the Open Payments Database were recorded for each US physician-author with available data. \\\"Relevant payments\\\" refer to transactions made to authors by bronchoscopy-related companies. Documentation of all payments involving these companies during the three years prior to an article's submission date was obtained. These payments were compared to the self-reported conflicts of interest for each author, per article, and the number and value of payments were categorized and totaled.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nTwenty-seven articles were included, accounting for 75 U.S. physicians with data reported in the Open Payments Database. Of the $17 million in relevant payments reported, $9.9 million were not disclosed (57%). Sixty-eight of 75 (91%) of authors had incomplete physician disclosures. Excluding food and beverage payments, sixty authors had incomplete disclosures (80%).\\r\\n\\r\\nINTERPRETATION\\r\\nRelevant conflicts of interest appear to be inconsistently disclosed in publications on robotic assisted bronchoscopy, suggesting self-reporting may be an insufficient strategy. A centralized disclosure process that is automated or easier to use should be considered.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chest\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chest\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2024.10.006\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chest","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2024.10.006","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景在美国,机器人辅助支气管镜已被广泛采用,并改变了对肺部结节患者的管理。业界在研究、开发和营销方面前所未有的投资深刻地影响了支气管镜检查的格局,导致人们担心利益冲突会影响支气管镜检查研究的有效性。研究问题与美国医疗保险与医疗补助服务中心(Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services)公开支付数据库(Open Payments Database)中公开的支付情况相比,与机器人辅助支气管镜相关的文章中自我报告的相关利益冲突是否准确?研究设计与方法对2016年至2022年间PubMed上索引的所有与机器人辅助支气管镜相关的文章进行了相关性筛选。筛选出发表在相关性最高的五种期刊上的文章。记录了每位有数据的美国医生-作者在开放支付数据库(Open Payments Database)中报告的一般支付、研究支付和相关研究支付。"相关付款 "是指支气管镜相关公司向作者支付的交易。我们获得了文章提交日期前三年内涉及这些公司的所有付款文件。将这些付款与每篇文章中每位作者自我报告的利益冲突进行比较,并对付款的数量和价值进行分类和合计。结果共纳入了 27 篇文章,涉及 75 名在公开付款数据库中报告数据的美国医生。在报告的 1700 万美元相关付款中,有 990 万美元未披露(占 57%)。75 位作者中有 68 位(91%)的医生披露信息不完整。如果不包括餐饮费,则有 60 位作者披露的信息不完整(占 80%)。解释在有关机器人辅助支气管镜的出版物中,相关利益冲突的披露似乎并不一致,这表明自我报告可能是一种不充分的策略。应考虑采用自动化或更易于使用的集中披露流程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Conflicts of Interest in Bronchoscopy Research - Is Self-Reporting Sufficient?
BACKGROUND Robotic assisted bronchoscopy has been enthusiastically adopted in the U.S. and transformed the management of patients with indeterminate pulmonary nodules. Unprecedented industry investments in research, development, and marketing have profoundly affected the bronchoscopy landscape, leading to concerns that conflicts of interest could influence the validity of bronchoscopy studies. Disclosures of conflicts of interest in research are predicated on open and transparent self-reporting. RESEARCH QUESTION Are self-reported relevant conflicts of interest in articles pertaining to robotic assisted bronchoscopy accurate when compared to publicly available payments on the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services' Open Payments Database? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS All articles pertaining to robotic assisted bronchoscopy indexed on PubMed between 2016 and 2022 were screened for relevance. Articles appearing in the five journals with the most relevant publications were selected. General, research, and associated research payments reported in the Open Payments Database were recorded for each US physician-author with available data. "Relevant payments" refer to transactions made to authors by bronchoscopy-related companies. Documentation of all payments involving these companies during the three years prior to an article's submission date was obtained. These payments were compared to the self-reported conflicts of interest for each author, per article, and the number and value of payments were categorized and totaled. RESULTS Twenty-seven articles were included, accounting for 75 U.S. physicians with data reported in the Open Payments Database. Of the $17 million in relevant payments reported, $9.9 million were not disclosed (57%). Sixty-eight of 75 (91%) of authors had incomplete physician disclosures. Excluding food and beverage payments, sixty authors had incomplete disclosures (80%). INTERPRETATION Relevant conflicts of interest appear to be inconsistently disclosed in publications on robotic assisted bronchoscopy, suggesting self-reporting may be an insufficient strategy. A centralized disclosure process that is automated or easier to use should be considered.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Chest
Chest 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
13.70
自引率
3.10%
发文量
3369
审稿时长
15 days
期刊介绍: At CHEST, our mission is to revolutionize patient care through the collaboration of multidisciplinary clinicians in the fields of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. We achieve this by publishing cutting-edge clinical research that addresses current challenges and brings forth future advancements. To enhance understanding in a rapidly evolving field, CHEST also features review articles, commentaries, and facilitates discussions on emerging controversies. We place great emphasis on scientific rigor, employing a rigorous peer review process, and ensuring all accepted content is published online within two weeks.
×
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