IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0204993.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of the conflicts of interest disclosed by the program reviewers of the scoliosis research society (SRS) congresses, 2010-2014

Author

Listed:
  • Carlos Barrios
  • Joaquín Alfonso
  • José Miguel Lloris
  • Eduardo Hevia
  • Jesús Burgos

Abstract

Background: Conflicts of interest (COI) between industry and surgeons frequently introduce biases into surgical research. The abstracts submitted for presentation in scientific congresses are usually vetted for any indication of commercial bias. Members of review program committees regularly have recognized qualifications, and therefore certain COI are unavoidable. This study aims to determine the prevalence and magnitude of possible COI among those responsible for the selection of presentations at two important international conferences on spine surgery during a five-year period. Methodology: COI declarations by those responsible for the final programs of the annual SRS (Scoliosis Research Society) and IMAST (International Meeting of Advanced Spine Technologies) conferences from 2010 to 2014 were collected and analyzed from data published by the corresponding scientific programs. The SRS’s disclosure index did not contain financial amounts; therefore, this aspect could not be analyzed. Results: Five scientific committees and 117 members (76 individuals) were studied. Of these 76, 41 (53.9%) participated in more than one conflict of interest (>1 COI). Scientific committee members were from 11 countries across 4 continents, but most were from the Unites States (76.9%). Of the 117 program reviewers, 65.8% declared >1 COI and 34.2% reported no COI. The 77 program reviewers who disclosed a potential COI declared a total of 273 COI (mean = 3.54 COI/member). Overall, 36.0%, 26.1%, 10.7%, and 10.7% of the COI corresponded to consultancies, research funds, bureau participation, and advisory board panel participation, respectively. Stockholder reimbursement corresponded to 8.8% of the disclosed COI, and financial or material support were mentioned in 7.4% of COI. Among the COI disclosures, 55 companies were mentioned, and 5 of the top 10 companies involved in spinal device markets were responsible for 65.2% of the COI. Conclusions: More than two thirds of the members of the SRS and IMAST scientific committees reported COI. Consultancies and research grants account for two thirds of these. Most of the grants and major COI are related to the five companies leading the spinal implant market.

Suggested Citation

  • Carlos Barrios & Joaquín Alfonso & José Miguel Lloris & Eduardo Hevia & Jesús Burgos, 2018. "Analysis of the conflicts of interest disclosed by the program reviewers of the scoliosis research society (SRS) congresses, 2010-2014," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-14, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0204993
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204993
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204993
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0204993&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0204993?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brian P Walcott & Sameer A Sheth & Brian V Nahed & Jean-Valery Coumans, 2012. "Conflict of Interest in Spine Research Reporting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-4, August.
    2. Stein J Janssen & Annelien L Bredenoord & Wouter Dhert & Marinus de Kleuver & F Cumhur Oner & Jorrit-Jan Verlaan, 2015. "Potential Conflicts of Interest of Editorial Board Members from Five Leading Spine Journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-11, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. S Scott Graham & Zoltan P Majdik & Dave Clark & Molly M Kessler & Tristin Brynn Hooker, 2020. "Relationships among commercial practices and author conflicts of interest in biomedical publishing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-11, July.
    2. Victoria S S Wong & Lauro Nathaniel Avalos & Michael L Callaham, 2019. "Industry payments to physician journal editors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-11, February.
    3. Rachel Thompson & Zoe Paskins & Barry G. Main & Thaddeus Mason Pope & Evelyn C. Y. Chan & Ben W. Moulton & Michael J. Barry & Clarence H. Braddock III, 2021. "Addressing Conflicts of Interest in Health and Medicine: Current Evidence and Implications for Patient Decision Aid Development," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 768-779, October.
    4. Waqas Haque & Abu Minhajuddin & Arjun Gupta & Deepak Agrawal, 2018. "Conflicts of interest of editors of medical journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-12, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0204993. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.