Characteristics of physicians receiving large payments from pharmaceutical companies and the accuracy of their disclosures in publications: an observational study

BMC Medical Ethics

Rongwei Fu²  Brittany U Burda¹  Lauren A Ogden³  Haley K Holmer³  Susan L Norris³ 

[1] Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, OR, USA;Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA;Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Mail Code BICC, Portland, OR, 97239, USA

关键词: Accuracy;    Disclosure;    Bias;    Physicians;    Industry relationships;    Publication;    Conflict of interest;   

Others  :  800025
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6939-13-24

 received in 2012-03-21, accepted in 2012-09-24,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Financial relationships between physicians and industry are extensive and public reporting of industry payments to physicians is now occurring. Our objectives were to describe physician recipients of large total payments from these seven companies, and to examine discrepancies between these payments and conflict of interest (COI) disclosures in authors’ concurrent publications.

Methods

The investigative journalism organization, ProPublica, compiled the Dollars for Docs database of payments to individuals from publically available data from seven US pharmaceutical companies during the period 2009 to 2010. We examined the cohort of 373 physicians in this database who each received USD $100,000 or more in the reporting period 2009 to 2010.

Results

These physicians received a total of $52,600,624 during this period (mean payment per physician $141,020). The predominant specialties were internal medicine and psychiatry. 147 of these physicians authored a total of 134 publications in the first quarter of 2011 and 77% (103) of these publications provided a COI disclosure. 69% of the 103 publications did not contain disclosures of the payment listed in the Dollars for Docs database.

Conclusions

With increased public reporting of industry payments to physicians, it is apparent that large sums are being paid for services such as consulting and peer education. In over two-thirds of publications where COI disclosures were provided, the disclosures by physician authors did not include industry payments that were documented in the Dollars for Docs database.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Norris et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J, Miller LG, Cleary PD, Blumenthal D: A national survey of physician-industry relationships. N Engl J Med 2007, 356:1742-1750.
• [2]Hockenberry JM, Weigel P, Auerbach A, Cram P, Hockenberry JM, Weigel P, Auerbach A, Cram P: Financial payments by orthopedic device makers to orthopedic surgeons. Arch Intern Med 2011, 171:1759-1765.
• [3]Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, Kjaergard LL: Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA 2003, 290:921-928.
• [4]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.
• [5]Golder S, Loke YK: Is there evidence for biased reporting of published adverse effects data in pharmaceutical industry-funded studies? Br J Clin Pharmacol 2008, 66:767-773.
• [6]Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O: Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003, 326:1167-1170.
• [7]Sismondo S, Sismondo S: How pharmaceutical industry funding affects trial outcomes: causal structures and responses. Soc Sci Med 2008, 66:1909-1914.
• [8]Barnes DE, Bero LA: Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA 1998, 279:1566-1570.
• [9]Norris S, Holmer H, Ogden L, Burda B: Conflict of interest in clinical practice guideline development: a systematic review. PLoS One 2011, 6:e25153.
• [10]Physician Payments Sunshine Act of 2009. http://www.prescriptionproject.org/tools/sunshine_docs/files/0005.pdf webcite
• [11]Dollars for Docs. www.propublica.org webcite
• [12]Google Refine. http://code.google.com/p/google-refine/ webcite
• [13]Firebug. http://getfirebug.com webcite
• [14]Adobe Acrobat. http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat.htm webcite
• [15]Scraping for Journalism: A Guide for Collecting Data. http://www.propublica.org/nerds/item/doc-dollars-guides-collecting-the-data webcite
• [16]Chimonas S, Frosch Z, Rothman DJ: From Disclosure to Transparency: The Use of Company Payment Data. Arch Intern Med 2011, 171:81-86.
• [17]Okike K, Kocher MS, Wei EX, Mehlman CT, Bhandari M, Okike K, Kocher MS, Wei EX, Mehlman CT, Bhandari M: Accuracy of conflict-of-interest disclosures reported by physicians. N Engl J Med 2009, 361:1466-1474.
• [18]Bhattacharyya N, Lin HW: Prevalence and Reliability of Self-Reported Authorship Disclosures in Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery. Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery 2009, 141:311-315.
• [19]Weinfurt KP, Seils DM, Tzeng JP, Lin L, Schulman KA, Califf RM: Consistency of Financial Interest Disclosures in the Biomedical Literature: The Case of Coronary Stents. PLoS One 2008, 3:e2128.
• [20]Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf webcite
• [21]Krimsky S, Rothenberg LS: Financial interest and its disclosure in scientific publications. JAMA 1998, 280(3):225-226.
• [22]Chaudhry S, Schroter S, Smith R, et al.: Does declaration of competing interests affect readers’ perceptions? A randomised trial. BMJ 2002, 325(7377):1391-1392.
• [23]Schroter S, Morris J, Chaudhry S, Smith R, Barratt H: Does the type of competing interest statement affect readers’ perceptions of the credibility of research? Randomised trial. BMJ 2004, 328(7442):742-743.
• [24]Silverman GK, Loewenstein GF, Anderson BL, Ubel PA, Zinberg S, Schulkin J: Failure to discount for conflict of interest when evaluating medical literature: a randomised trial of physicians. J Med Ethics 2010, 36(5):265-270.