How prevalent are financial conflicts of interest in dermatology randomized controlled trials? A cross-sectional study

被引:1
作者
Steele, L. [1 ,2 ]
Earp, E. [3 ]
Hong, A. [2 ]
机构
[1] Queen Mary Univ London, Blizard Inst, Ctr Cell Biol & Cutaneous Res, London E1 2AT, England
[2] Barts Hlth NHS Trust, Royal London Hosp, Dept Dermatol, London, England
[3] Dept Dermatol, Lauriston Bldg, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland
关键词
D O I
10.1111/ced.14593
中图分类号
R75 [皮肤病学与性病学];
学科分类号
100206 ;
摘要
Since the last assessment of conflicts of interest (COIs) in dermatology randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 2004, several countries have introduced transparency databases. We assessed the prevalence of financial COIs in dermatology RCTs and quantified payments from study sponsors to academic/clinical authors using transparency databases, which are available in the USA, France, Australia, Belgium and the Netherlands, while the UK has a noncompulsory transparency database. We included RCTs from the top 10 dermatology journals and the top 7 general medical journals published in 2019. The study assessed 83 RCTs, and COIs were identified in 69%. The highest prevalence was in exclusively industry-funded trials (46/47, 98%), which consisted of personal payments to an academic/clinical author (96% of trials) and having authors who were employees/stockholders (96%). Payments were identified for 31/56 (55%) academic/clinical first/final authors (median payment US$28 746, maximum US$597 299, interquartile range US$17 061-146 253), and 24/31 payments (77%) payments were each > US$10 000.
引用
收藏
页码:715 / 719
页数:5
相关论文
共 15 条
  • [1] CONSORT adoption and quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: a systematic analysis in two dermatology journals
    Alvarez, F.
    Meyer, N.
    Gourraud, P. A.
    Paul, C.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY, 2009, 161 (05) : 1159 - 1165
  • [2] [Anonymous], CHANGING EVIDENCE
  • [3] Developing good scientific publishing practices: one pharmaceutical company's perspective
    Dowsett, Sherie A.
    Van Campen, Luann E.
    Bednar, Lisa A.
    [J]. CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION, 2010, 26 (06) : 1249 - 1254
  • [4] WHO retracts opioid guidelines after accepting that industry had an influence
    Dyer, Owen
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2020, 368 : m105
  • [5] Higgins JPT, 2021, Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3
  • [6] Offline: The BMJ vs NEJM-lessons for us all
    Horton, Richard
    [J]. LANCET, 2015, 385 (9984) : 2238 - 2238
  • [7] Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked: a report to David Sackett
    Ioannidis, John P. A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2016, 73 : 82 - 86
  • [8] The quality of reporting randomized controlled trials in the dermatology literature in an era where the CONSORT statement is a standard
    Kim, D. Y.
    Park, H. S.
    Cho, S.
    Yoon, H. S.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY, 2019, 180 (06) : 1361 - 1367
  • [9] Lo B., 2009, CONFLICT INTEREST ME
  • [10] Industry sponsorship and research outcome
    Lundh, Andreas
    Lexchin, Joel
    Mintzes, Barbara
    Schroll, Jeppe B.
    Bero, Lisa
    [J]. COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2017, (02):