Conflict of Interest in Spine Research Reporting

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Conflict of Interest in Spine Research Reporting

Citable link to this page

 

 
Title: Conflict of Interest in Spine Research Reporting
Author: Walcott, Brian Patrick; Sheth, Sameer Anil; Nahed, Brian Vala; Coumans, Jean-Valery C E

Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.

Citation: Walcott, Brian P., Sameer A. Sheth, Brian V. Nahed, and Jean-Valery Coumans. 2012. Conflict of interest in spine research reporting. PLoS ONE 7(8): e44327.
Full Text & Related Files:
Abstract: 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.
Published Version: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044327
Other Sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3432133/pdf/
Terms of Use: This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA
Citable link to this page: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:10579131
Downloads of this work:

Show full Dublin Core record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

 
 

Search DASH


Advanced Search
 
 

Submitters