Conflict of interest in spine research reporting.

BACKGROUND: Medical studies are more likely to report favorable findings when a conflict of interest is declared. We aim to quantify and determine the effect of author disclosure of conflict of interest on scientific reporting. METHODS: Abstracts from an international spine research meeting (North A...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Brian P Walcott, Sameer A Sheth, Brian V Nahed, Jean-Valery Coumans
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2012-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3432133?pdf=render
id doaj-8b5bf684a7384143a713f460d0726cf7
record_format Article
spelling doaj-8b5bf684a7384143a713f460d0726cf72020-11-25T02:39:03ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032012-01-0178e4432710.1371/journal.pone.0044327Conflict of interest in spine research reporting.Brian P WalcottSameer A ShethBrian V NahedJean-Valery CoumansBACKGROUND: Medical studies are more likely to report favorable findings when a conflict of interest is declared. We aim to quantify and determine the effect of author disclosure of conflict of interest on scientific reporting. METHODS: Abstracts from an international spine research meeting (North American Spine Society 2010) were selected that specifically evaluated a device, biologic, or proprietary procedure. They were then made anonymous to reviewers. An item of interest was established in each of the abstracts in order to standardize evaluation. Next, three blinded reviewers independently rated the abstracts as favorable, neutral, or unfavorable with regard to the item of interest. Additionally, the blinded reviewers attempted to predict whether a related disclosure was made. The meeting disclosure index was used to tabulate the minimum US dollar value attributable to disclosures. RESULTS: Of the 344 total abstracts, 76 met inclusion criteria. In 79%, a related conflict of interest was reported. The amount of the disclosure was incompletely reported in 30% of cases. Where available, it averaged a cumulative minimum of $219,634 USD per abstract. The results of the abstracts were judged to be favorable, neutral, and unfavorable in 63%, 32% and 5% of abstracts, respectively. There was no correlation between the presence of a related disclosure and the findings of the studies (p = 0.81), although interpretation of this is limited by a small sample size and an overall apparent bias to report favorable studies. Additionally, the blinded reviewers were unable to predict whether a related disclosure was made (p = 0.40). CONCLUSION: No association existed between the presence of a related disclosure and the results of the studies. While the actual compliance with reporting a potential conflict of interest is unable to be determined, the value amount related to the disclosures made was inadequately reported according to meeting guidelines.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3432133?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Brian P Walcott
Sameer A Sheth
Brian V Nahed
Jean-Valery Coumans
spellingShingle Brian P Walcott
Sameer A Sheth
Brian V Nahed
Jean-Valery Coumans
Conflict of interest in spine research reporting.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Brian P Walcott
Sameer A Sheth
Brian V Nahed
Jean-Valery Coumans
author_sort Brian P Walcott
title Conflict of interest in spine research reporting.
title_short Conflict of interest in spine research reporting.
title_full Conflict of interest in spine research reporting.
title_fullStr Conflict of interest in spine research reporting.
title_full_unstemmed Conflict of interest in spine research reporting.
title_sort conflict of interest in spine research reporting.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2012-01-01
description BACKGROUND: Medical studies are more likely to report favorable findings when a conflict of interest is declared. We aim to quantify and determine the effect of author disclosure of conflict of interest on scientific reporting. METHODS: Abstracts from an international spine research meeting (North American Spine Society 2010) were selected that specifically evaluated a device, biologic, or proprietary procedure. They were then made anonymous to reviewers. An item of interest was established in each of the abstracts in order to standardize evaluation. Next, three blinded reviewers independently rated the abstracts as favorable, neutral, or unfavorable with regard to the item of interest. Additionally, the blinded reviewers attempted to predict whether a related disclosure was made. The meeting disclosure index was used to tabulate the minimum US dollar value attributable to disclosures. RESULTS: Of the 344 total abstracts, 76 met inclusion criteria. In 79%, a related conflict of interest was reported. The amount of the disclosure was incompletely reported in 30% of cases. Where available, it averaged a cumulative minimum of $219,634 USD per abstract. The results of the abstracts were judged to be favorable, neutral, and unfavorable in 63%, 32% and 5% of abstracts, respectively. There was no correlation between the presence of a related disclosure and the findings of the studies (p = 0.81), although interpretation of this is limited by a small sample size and an overall apparent bias to report favorable studies. Additionally, the blinded reviewers were unable to predict whether a related disclosure was made (p = 0.40). CONCLUSION: No association existed between the presence of a related disclosure and the results of the studies. While the actual compliance with reporting a potential conflict of interest is unable to be determined, the value amount related to the disclosures made was inadequately reported according to meeting guidelines.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3432133?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT brianpwalcott conflictofinterestinspineresearchreporting
AT sameerasheth conflictofinterestinspineresearchreporting
AT brianvnahed conflictofinterestinspineresearchreporting
AT jeanvalerycoumans conflictofinterestinspineresearchreporting
_version_ 1724787896955699200