Financial and intellectual conflicts of interest: Confusion and clarity

Current Opinion in Critical Care

Volumn 15, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 583-590

  Bion, Julian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bias; Conflict of interest; Medical education; Professionalism

Indexed keywords

CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DRUG INDUSTRY; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE; HUMAN; INTELLIGENCE; LICENSING; MARKETING; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL SOCIETY; MEDLINE; ORGANIZATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROFESSIONALISM; REVIEW;

COMPREHENSION; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; CONFUSION; EDUCATION, MEDICAL;

EID: 74949108694     PISSN: 10705295     EISSN: 15317072     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e328332f53a     Document Type: Review

References (97)

1. Lo B, Field MJ, editors. Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice.Committee on Conflict of Interest inMedical Research, Education, and Practice, Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009. http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3740/47464/65721.aspx. [Accessed 31 July 2009]
2. Smith R. Conflicts of interest: how money clouds objectivity. J R Soc Med 2006; 99:292-297.
3. Levinsky NG. Nonfinancial conflicts of interest in research. N Engl J Med 2002; 347:759-761.
4. PLoS Medicine Editors. Making sense of non-financial competing interests. PLoS Med 2008; 5:e199.
5. Luborsky L, Diguer L, Seligman DA, et al. The researcher's own therapy allegiances: a 'wild card' in comparisons of treatment efficacy. Clin Psychol Sci Pract 1999; 6:95-106.
6. Gray SW, Hlubocky FJ, Ratain MJ, Daugherty CK. Attitudes toward research participation and investigator conflicts of interest among advanced cancer patients participating in early phase clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:3488-3494.
7. Bala-Miller P, Macmullan J, Upchurch L. Drugs, doctors and dinners. How drug companies influence health in the developing world. London: Consumers International; 2007. http://marketingoverdose.org/documents/ci-pharma- 2007.pdf. [Accessed 14 August 2009]
8. Cain DM, Detsky AS. Everyone's a little bit biased (even physicians). JAMA 2008; 299:2893-2895.
9. Zipkin DA, Steinman MA. Interactions between pharmaceutical representatives and doctors in training. A thematic review. J Gen Intern Med 2005; 20:777-786.
10. Steinman MA, Shlipak MG, McPhee SJ. Of principles and pens: attitudes and practices of medicine house staff toward pharmaceutical industry promotions. Am J Med 2001; 110:551-557.
11. Choudhry NK, Stelfox HT, Detsky AS. Relationships between authors of clinical practice guidelines and the pharmaceutical industry. JAMA 2002; 287:612-617.
12. Press release. British Science Association, Brunel University Law School, Economic and Social Research Council. http://www.honestylab.com/index. php?id=2. [Accessed 7 September 2009]
13. Gagnon M-A, Lexchin J. The cost of pushing pills: a new estimate of pharmaceutical promotion expenditures in the United States. PLoS Med 2008; 5:e1.
14. Jain S, George G, Maltarich M. Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Res Policy 2009; 38:922-935.
15. Buenstorf G. Is commercialization good or bad for science? Individual-level evidence from the Max Planck Society. Res Policy 2009; 38:281-292.
16. Irwin RS. The role of conflict of interest in reporting of scientific information. Chest 2009; 136:253-259.
17. DeAngelis CD, Fontanarosa PB. Impugning the integrity of medical science: the adverse effects of industry influence. JAMA 2008; 299:1833-1835.
18. Lurie P, Almeida CM, Stine N, et al. Financial conflict of interest disclosure and voting patterns at food and drug administration drug advisory committee meetings. JAMA 2006; 295:1921-1928.
19. Luty J, Arokiadass SM, Easow JM, Anapreddy JR. Preferential publication of editorial board members in medical specialty journals. J Med Ethics 2009; 35:200-202.
20. Gottlieb S. FDA censures NEJM editor. BMJ 2000; 320:1562.
21. Smith R. Lapses at the New England Journal of Medicine. J R Soc Med 2006; 99:380-382.
22. Drazen JM. Response to 'lapses at the NEJM'. J R Soc Med 2006; 99:380-382.
23. Hirsch LJ. Conflicts of interest, authorship, and disclosures in industry-related scientific publications: the tort bar and editorial oversight of medical journals. Mayo Clinic Proc 2009; 84:811-821.
24. Lanier WL. Bidirectional conflicts of interest involving industry and medical journals: who will champion integrity? Mayo Clinic Proc 2009; 84:771-775.
25. Lexchin J, Light DW. Commercial influence and the content of medical journals. BMJ 2006; 332:1444-1447.
26. Smith R. Should medical journals carry drug advertising? Yes. BMJ 2007; 335:74.
27. Angell M. The truth about the drug companies: how they deceive us and what to do about it?. New York, New York: Random House; 2004.
28. Kassirer J. On the take: how medicine's complicity with big business can endanger your health. New York, New York: Oxford University Press; 2004.
29. Ross JS, Hill KP, Egilman DS, Krumholz HM. Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib: a case study of industry documents from rofecoxib litigation. JAMA 2008; 299:1800-1812.
30. Psaty BM, Kronmal RA. Reporting mortality findings in trials of rofecoxib for Alzheimer disease or cognitive impairment: a case study based on documents from rofecoxib litigation. JAMA 2008; 299:1813-1817.
31. Hill KP, Ross JS, Egilman DS, Krumholz HM. The ADVANTAGE seeding trial: a review of internal documents. Ann Intern Med 2008; 49:251-258.
32. Kjaergard LL, Als-Nielsen B. Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ. BMJ 2002; 325:249-253.
33. Djulbegovic B, Lacevic M, Cantor A, et al. The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet 2000; 356:635-638.
34. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003; 326:1167-1170.
35. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 2003; 289:454-465.
36. Jagsi R, Sheets N, Jankovic A, et al. Frequency, nature, effects, and correlates of conflicts of interest in published clinical cancer research. Cancer 2009; 115:2783-2791.
37. Jørgensen AW, Hilden J, Gøtzsche PC. Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ 2006; 333:782-787.
38. Wazana A. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry. Is a gift ever just a gift? JAMA 2000; 283:373-380. (Pubitemid 30051756)
39. Katz D, Caplan AL,Merz JF. All gifts large and small: toward an understanding of the ethics of pharmaceutical industry gift-giving. Am J Bioeth 2003; 3:39-46.
40. Dana J, Loewenstein G. A social science perspective on gifts to physicians from industry. JAMA 2003; 290:252-255.
41. Wall LL, Brown D. The high cost of free lunch. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110:169-173.
42. Tonelli MR. Conflict of interest in clinical practice. Chest 2007; 132:664-670.
43. Fugh-Berman A, Ahari S. Following the script: how drug reps make friends and influence doctors. PLoS Med 2007; 4:e150.
44. Topol EJ, Blumenthal D. Physicians and the investment industry. JAMA 2005; 293:2654-2657.
45. The American Society of Clinical Oncology. Interactions with the investment industry: practical and ethical implications. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:338-340.
46. Curfman GD, Morrissey S, Annas GJ, Drazen JM. Peer review in the balance. N Engl J Med 2008; 358:2276-2277.
47. Stossel T. Regulating academic-industry research relationships: solving problems or stifling progress? N Engl J Med 2005; 353:1060-1065.
48. Stossel TP. Regulation of financial conflicts of interest in medical practice and medical research: a damaging solution in search of a problem. Perspect Biol Med 2007; 50:54-71.
49. Stossel TP. Has the hunt for conflicts of interest gone too far? Yes. BMJ 2008; 336:476.
50. Willyard C. Conflict of interest rules seen by some as too stringent. Nat Med 2009; 15:709.
51. Reis SP, Wald HS. Learning from the past: medicine and the Holocaust. Lancet 2009; 374:110-111.
52. Parascandola M. A turning point for conflicts of interest: the controversy over the national academy of sciences' first conflicts of interest disclosure policy. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:3774-3779.
53. Ensor T, Duran-Moreno A. Corruption as a challenge to effective regulation in the health sector. In: Saltman RB, Busse R, Mossialos E, editors. Regulating entrepreneurial behaviour in European healthcare systems. European Observatory on Healthcare Systems series. World Health Organization; 2002.
54. DeAngelis CD, Fontanarosa PB. Resolving unreported conflicts of interest. JAMA 2009; 302:198-199.
55. Flanagin A, Fontanarosa PB, DeAngelis CD. Update on JAMA's conflict of interest policy. JAMA 2006; 296:220-221.
56. NIH resources on COI. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/coi/.
57. Forum on conflict of interest in academe. http://www.aamc.org/members/ foci/start.htm.
58. AAMC. Protecting patients, preserving integrity, advancing health: accelerating the implementation of COI policies in human subjects research. Washington, DC: AAMC; 2008. https://services.aamc.org/Publications/ showfile.cfm?file=version107.pdf&prd-id=220&prv-id=268&pdf-id=107. [Accessed 20 July 2009]
59. Fontanarosa PB, Flanagin A, DeAngelis CD. Reporting conflicts of interest, financial aspects of research, and role of sponsors in funded studies. JAMA 2005; 294:110-111.
60. DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal. JAMA 2004; 292:1363-1364.
61. Smyth RL. Making information about clinical trials publicly available [editorial]. BMJ 2009; 338:b2473.
62. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009; 339:b2700.
63. AAMC Taskforce. Industry funding of medical education. Washington, DC: AAMC; 2009. http://services.aamc.org/publications/showfile.cfm?file=version114. pdf&prd-id=232. [Accessed 20 July 2009]
64. Sears J. Implementing the recommendations of the AAMC task force on industry funding of medical education: a selected policy language compendium. Washington, DC: AAMC; 2008. http://www.aamc.org/research/coi/ compendium2008.pdf.
65. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. Code of practice 2006. London: ABPI; 2006. http://www.abpi.org.uk/links/assoc/PMCPA/ pmpca-code2006.pdf. [Accessed 25 July 2009]
66. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). Code on interactions with healthcare professionals. http://www.phrma.org/files/ PhRMA%20Marketing%20Code%202008.pdf. [Accessed 25 July 2009]
67. Greenland P. Time for the medical profession to act: new policies needed now on interactions between pharmaceutical companies and physicians. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169:829-831.
68. Elliott C. Pharma goes to the laundry. Hastings Centre Rep 2004; 34:18-23.
69. Rothman DJ, McDonald WJ, Berkowitz CD, et al. Professional medical associations and their relationships with industry: a proposal for controlling conflict of interest. JAMA 2009; 301:1367-1372.
70. Shaneyfelt TM, Centor RM. Reassessment of clinical practice guidelines: go gently into that goodnight. JAMA 2009; 301:868-869.
71. ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Methodology manual for ACC/ AHA guideline writing committees. AHA; 2009. http://www.americanheart. org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3039684. [Accessed 31 July 2009]
72. Smith R. Beyond conflict of interest: transparency is the key [editorial]. BMJ 1998; 317:291-292.
73. De Melo-Martín I, Intemann K. How do disclosure policies fail? Let us count the ways. FASEB J 2009; 23:1638-1642.
74. Schwartz RS, Curfman GD, Morrissey S, Drazen JM. Full disclosure and the funding of biomedical research. N Engl J Med 2008; 358:1850-1851.
75. Moy B. Medical integrity up in smoke? Conflicts of interest and the lung cancer screening controversy. Oncologist 2008; 13:474-476.
76. Weinfurt KP, Seils DM, Tzeng JP, et al. Consistency of financial interest disclosures in the biomedical literature: the case of coronary stents. PLoS One 2008; 3:e2128.
77. Natanson C. Incomplete financial disclosure in a study of cell-free hemoglobin- based blood substitutes and risks of myocardial infarction and death. JAMA 2008; 300:1300.
78. DeAngelis CD, Fontanarosa PB. Retraction: Cheng B-Q, et al. Chemoembolization combined with radiofrequency ablation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma larger than 3 cm: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009; 301:1931.
79. Smith R, Feachem R, Feachem NS, et al. The fallacy of impartiality: competing interest bias in academic publications. J R Soc Med 2009; 102:44-45.
80. Hanson KG, Gilson L, Goodman C, Mills A. The fallacy of competing interest statements: no shortcut to rigour in research. J R Soc Med 2009; 102:126.
81. Van McCrary S, Anderson CB, Jakovljevic J, et al. A national survey of policies on disclosure of conflicts of interest in biomedical research. N Engl J Med 2000; 343:1621-1626.
82. Schneider N, Lingner H, Schwartz FW. Disclosing conflicts of interest in German publications concerning health services research. BMC Health Serv Res 2007; 7:78.
83. Steinbrook R. On-line disclosure of physician-industry relationships. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:325-327.
84. Tricoci P, Allen JM, Kramer JM, et al. Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/ AHA clinical practice guidelines. JAMA 2009; 301:831-841.
85. Sniderman AD, Furberg CD. Why guideline-making requires reform. JAMA 2009; 301:429-431.
86. Palda VA, Davis D, Goldman J. A guide to the Canadian Medical Association Handbook on clinical practice guidelines. CMAJ 2007; 177:1221-1226.
87. Diamond GA, Kaul S. Bayesian classification of clinical practice guidelines. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169:1431-1435.
88. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Dellinger P, et al. Use of GRADE grid to reach decisions on clinical practice guidelines when consensus is elusive. BMJ 2008; 337:327-337.
89. Doucet M, Sismondo S. Evaluating solutions to sponsorship bias. J Med Ethics 2008; 34:627-630.
90. Dellinger RP, Carlet JM, Masur H, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med 2004; 32:858-873. (Pubitemid 38344143)
91. Eichacker PQ, Natanson C, Danner RL. Surviving sepsis: practice guidelines, marketing campaigns, and Eli Lilly. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:1640-1642.
92. AMA. Opinion 8.061: gifts to physicians from industry. http://www.amaassn. org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical- ethics/ opinion8061.shtml. [Accessed 31 July 2009]
93. AmericanMedical Association.Module 4:AmericanMedical Association ethical guidelines on gifts to physicians fromindustry. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/ pub/upload/mm/437/ama-m4-ph.pdf. [Accessed 14 January 2005]
94. Grande D, Frosch DL, Perkins AW, Kahn BE. Effect of exposure to small pharmaceutical promotional items on treatment preferences. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169:887-893.
95. A really serious conflict [editorial]. Nat Med 2009; 15:463-464.
96. Is the university-industrial complex out of control? Nature 2001; 409:119.
97. McCormick BB, Tomlinson G, Brill-Edwards P, Detsky AS. Effect of restricting contact between pharmaceutical company representatives and internal medicine residents on posttraining attitudes and behaviour. JAMA 2001; 286:1994-1999.