scholarly journals A Quantitative and Narrative Evaluation of Goodman and Gilman’s Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian J. Piper ◽  
Alexandria A. Alinea ◽  
John R Wroblewski ◽  
Sara M. Graham ◽  
Daniel Y. Chung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Pharmacology ◽  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Pharmaceutical Companies ◽  
Expert Evaluation ◽  
Reported Data ◽  
Professional Degrees ◽  
Narrative Evaluation ◽  
Open Payments ◽  
Pharmacological Basis

AbstractObjectiveGoodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (GGPBT) has been a cornerstone in the education of pharmacists, physicians, and pharmacologists for decades. The objectives of this report were to describe and evaluate the 13th edition of GGPBT including: 1) author characteristics; 2) recency of citations; 3) conflict of interest (CoI) disclosure, and 4) expert evaluation of chapters.MethodsContributors’ (N = 115) sex, professional degrees, and presence of undisclosed potential CoI as reported by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid’s Open Payments (2013 to 2017) were examined. Year of publication of citations were extracted relative to comparison textbooks (Katzung’s Basic and Clinical Pharmacology (KatBCP), and DiPiro’s Pharmacotherapy: A Pathophysiologic Approach (DiPPAPA). Content experts in pharmacy and pharmacology education provided chapter reviews.ResultsThe percent of GGPBT contributors that were female (20.9%) was equivalent to those in KatBCP (17.0%). Citations in GGPBT (11.5 ± 0.2 years) were significantly older than those in KatBCP (10.4 ± 0.2) and DiPPAPA (9.1 ± 0.1, p < .0001). Contributors to GGPBT received three million in undisclosed remuneration from pharmaceutical companies (Maximum author = $743,718). In contrast, DiPPAPA made CoI information available. However, self-reported disclosures were not uniformly congruent with Open Payments reported data. Reviewers noted several strengths but also some areas for improvement.ConclusionGGPBT will continue to be an important component of the biomedical curriculum. Areas of improvement include more diverse authorship, improved conflict of interest transparency, and greater inclusion of more recent citations.

scholarly journals A Quantitative and Narrative Evaluation of Goodman and Gilman’s Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics

Pharmacy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian J. Piper ◽  
Alexandria A. Alinea ◽  
John R. Wroblewski ◽  
Sara M. Graham ◽  
Daniel Y. Chung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Pharmacology ◽  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Expert Evaluation ◽  
Professional Degrees ◽  
Narrative Evaluation ◽  
Open Payments ◽  
Pharmacological Basis

Goodman and Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (GGPBT) has been a cornerstone in the education of pharmacists, physicians, and pharmacologists for decades. The objectives of this study were to describe and evaluate the 13th edition of GGPBT on bases including: (1) author characteristics; (2) recency of citations; (3) conflict of interest (CoI) disclosure; (4) expert evaluation of chapters. Contributors’ (N = 115) sex, professional degrees, and presence of undisclosed potential CoI—as reported by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid’s Open Payments (2013–2017)—were examined. The year of publication of citations was extracted relative to Katzung’s Basic and Clinical Pharmacology (KatBCP), and DiPiro’s Pharmacotherapy: A Pathophysiologic Approach (DiPPAPA). Content experts provided thorough chapter reviews. The percent of GGPBT contributors that were female (20.9%) was equivalent to those in KatBCP (17.0%). Citations in GGPBT (11.5 ± 0.2 years) were significantly older than those in KatBCP (10.4 ± 0.2) and DiPPAPA (9.1 ± 0.1, p < 0.0001). Contributors to GGPBT received USD 3 million in undisclosed remuneration (Maximum author = USD 743,718). In contrast, DiPPAPA made CoI information available. Reviewers noted several strengths but also some areas for improvement. GGPBT will continue to be an important component of the biomedical curriculum. Areas of improvement include a more diverse authorship, improved conflict of interest transparency, and a greater inclusion of more recent citations.

scholarly journals Trade in Health Service: Unfair Competition of Pharmaceutical Products in Nepal

1970 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 123-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Madhusudan Subedi
Keyword(s):  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Pharmaceutical Products ◽  
Poor People ◽  
Pharmaceutical Companies ◽  
Ethical Guideline ◽  
Ethical Practices ◽  
Unethical Practices ◽  
Medical Sector ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Cost

About 35 percent of the total demand for medicines in Nepal is covered by Nepali Pharmaceutical companies, and such companies are moving ahead for producing different kinds of medicines. The Government of Nepal, Department of Drug Administration (DDA) has formulated different regulations and guidelines to ensure ethical practices in the medical sector of Nepal. Ethical Promotion of Medicine-2007 was developed and released to encourage the improvement of health care through the rational use of medicine and discourage unethical practices. It is distressing that the guidelines have not been implemented properly due to the conflict of interests among concerned stakeholders. The cost of medicine has been very expensive and poor people have always suffered. Key Words: Bonus; Ethical Guideline; Unethical Practices; Pharmaceutical Regulation; Conflict of Interest DOI: 10.3126/dsaj.v3i0.2783 Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology Vol.3 2009 123-142

Comparison of Self-Reported Conflict of Interest among Published Hernia Researchers to the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database

2016 ◽  
Vol 223 (4) ◽  
pp. S47
Author(s):  
Oscar Olavarria ◽  
Julie L. Holihan ◽  
Juan R. Flores-Gonzalez ◽  
Lillian S. Kao ◽  
Tien C. Ko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Open Payments

Accuracy Between AJSM Author-Reported Disclosures and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 969-976 ◽  
Author(s):  
Venkat Boddapati ◽  
Michael C. Fu ◽  
Benedict U. Nwachukwu ◽  
Anil S. Ranawat ◽  
Wilson Y. Zhen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Sports Medicine ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Lower Percentage ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Medicine Research ◽  
Asymmetry Of Information ◽  
Food And Beverage ◽  
Open Payments

Background: Inaccurate disclosures of physician and industry relationships in scientific reporting may create an asymmetry of information by hiding potential biases. The accuracy of conflict of interest disclosure in sports medicine research is unknown. Purpose: To compare author financial disclosures in published articles in 2016 in the American Journal of Sports Medicine ( AJSM) with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Open Payments Database (OPD) to determine the percentage of payments values and percentage of eligible authors with discrepancies. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; no level of evidence (nonclinical). Methods: All articles published in 2016 in AJSM were screened to identify eligible authors. On the basis of OPD reporting, physician authors affiliated with a US institution were included. Stated disclosures in AJSM publications for these authors were identified and compared with industry-reported payments on OPD. Results: A total of 434 authors were included in this study. Mean and median total payments per author per year were $76,941 and $1692, respectively. The most commonly received payment was for food and beverage (81.3% of authors), followed by travel and lodging (45.4%) and consulting (31.8%). Authors with higher total payments were less likely to be discrepant in their reporting—notably, authors earning >$500,000 had 16.1% of payment values with discrepancy, as opposed to 85.3% for those earning <$10,000 ( P < .001). First authors had a lower percentage of payment values with discrepancy (13.8%) versus middle authors (31.9%, P = .001). Finally, men had a lower percentage of payment values with discrepancy (418 authors, 22.3% of payment values with discrepancy) as compared with women (16 authors, 95.3%; P < .001). Regarding industry payments specifically requested on the AJSM disclosure form for authors (royalties, consulting, research payments, and ownership and investments), only 25.3% of authors had a discrepancy in these payment categories in aggregate. Conclusion: Discrepancies exist between disclosures reported by authors publishing in AJSM and what is reported in the OPD. Authors receiving lower total payments, middle authors, and women are more likely to have disclosure discrepancies. Additionally, industry research funding support and ownership interest are most likely to go unreported. However, this study did not assess whether authors with industry payments preferentially published studies pertaining to products from companies from which they received funding. As national registries such as the OPD are increasingly utilized, physicians may benefit from referencing such databases before submitting conflict of interest disclosures.

scholarly journals The “throwaways”. Conflicts of interest in dermatology publications

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge Roman ◽  
David J. Elpern
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Financial Conflict ◽  
News Magazines ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Open Payments ◽  
Clinical Dermatology

AbstractImportanceConflict of interest as it relates to medical education is a topic of concern. Dermatology journals, periodicals, editorials, and news magazines are influential resources that are not uniformly regulated and subject to influence from the pharmaceutical industry.ObjectiveThis study evaluates industry payments to physician editorial board members of common dermatology publications, including “throwaway” publications.DesignA list of editorial board members was compiled from a collection of clinical dermatology publications received over a 3-month period. To analyze the nature and extent of industry payments to this cohort, payments data from the Open Payments database from 2013 to 2019 were collected. Analysis of the total payments, number of transactions, categories of payments, payment sources, and physician specific characteristics was performed.ResultsTen publications were evaluated, and payments data for 466 physicians were analyzed. The total compensation across all years was $75,622,369.64. Services other than consulting, consulting, and travel/lodging payments comprised most of the payments. A faction of dermatologists received the majority of payments. The top payers were manufacturers of biologic medications. Payment amounts were higher for throwaway publications compared to peer-reviewed journals.ConclusionsEditorial board members of dermatology publications received substantial payments from the pharmaceutical industry. A minority of physicians receive the lion’s share of payments from industry. “Throwaway” publications have more financial conflict of interest than peer-reviewed journals. The impact of these conflicts of interest on patient care, physicians practice patterns, and patient perception of physicians is noteworthy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document