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 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.

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.

Conflict of Interest at Microsurgery Conferences: Disclosure of Its Extent and Nature

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grace Ha ◽  
Rachel Gray ◽  
Mona Clappier ◽  
Neil Tanna ◽  
Armen K. Kasabian
Keyword(s):  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Plastic Surgeon ◽  
Impact Research ◽  
The Mean ◽  
American Society ◽  
Open Payments

Abstract Background Industry relationships and conflicts of interest can impact research funding, topics, and outcomes. Little research regarding the role of biomedical companies at microsurgery conferences is available. This study evaluates the role of industry at conferences by comparing payments received by speakers at the American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgeons (ASRM) meeting with those received by speakers at the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (ASAPS) meeting, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) meeting, and an average plastic surgeon. It also compares payments made by different companies. Methods General payments received by speakers at the 2017 ASAPS, ASPS, and ASRM conferences were collected from the Open Payments Database. Mean payments received at each conference were calculated and the Mann–Whitney U test evaluated differences between conference speakers and the average plastic surgeon. The total amount of payments from each company was collected through the Open Payments Database, and Z-tests identified which companies paid significantly more than others. Results The mean (and median) general payments made to conference speakers at ASAPS (n = 75), ASPS (n = 247), and ASRM (n = 121) were $75,577 ($861), $27,562 ($1,021), and $16,725 ($652), respectively. These payments were significantly greater (p < 0.001 for all) than those of the average plastic surgeon ($4,441 and $327), but not significantly different from each other. Allergan contributed significantly more than other companies to speakers at ASPS and ASAPS, while LifeCell Corporation, Zimmer Biomet Holdings, and Axogen contributed significantly more to speakers at ASRM. Conclusion Payments to physicians at ASRM were significantly higher than those of an average plastic surgeon but not significantly different from those of speakers at ASAPS and ASPS. Certain companies paid significantly more than their peers at each conference. Given these findings, speakers should strive to make clear the nature and extent of their conflicts of interest when presenting at conferences.

scholarly journals Characterizing Potential Conflicts of Interest Among UpToDate and DynaMed Content Contributors

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
SooYoung H VanDeMark ◽  
Mia R Woloszyn ◽  
Laura A Christman ◽  
Michael Gatusky ◽  
Warren S Lam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Interest Policy ◽  
Disclosure Status ◽  
Open Payments

BACKGROUND: Financial conflicts of interest among physicians have the potential to negatively impact patient care. Physicians contribute content to two popular, evidence-based websites, UpToDate and DynaMed; while other physicians use these websites to influence their clinical decision making. Each website maintains a conflict-of-interest policy, and contributors are required to self-report a disclosure status. This research investigated the occurrence for potential conflicts of interest among the self-reported statuses of UpToDate and DynaMed content contributors. METHODS: An initial list of contributors for each website was compiled using the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions 2017 Leading Causes of Death. The top 50 causes were used to determine a relevant article with clinical implications from each database. All named authors and editors of those articles comprised our list of investigated contributors. Contributor disclosure status was then compared with public records of financial remuneration as reported in the Open Payments database maintained by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and ProPublicas Dollar for Docs website from 2013 to 2018. Descriptive analysis and Fishers exact tests were performed on the data. RESULTS: Of 76 UpToDate contributors, 57.9% reported nothing to disclose but had a record of receiving a financial payment on Open Payments, which was found to be statistically significant (p = 0.0002). Of DynaMeds 42 contributors who reported nothing to disclose, 83.3% had an entry on Open Payments. However, this was not statistically significant. The sum total of industry payments between 2013-2018 made to UpToDate contributors was $68.1 million. The top ten UpToDate contributors who received the most financial remuneration earned approximately $56.1 million (82.4% of all UpToDate renumeration), were all male, and only one had a nothing-to-disclose status. The sum total of compensation reported for the discordant UpToDate contributors between 2013-2018 was approximately $4.81 million (or 7.07% of the total monies reported to UpToDate contributors.) In that same time frame, DynaMed contributors received a sum total of $9.58 million from industry, while the top ten DynaMed contributors earned $8.88 million (or 92.8%) of that. The top ten DynaMed contributors were 80% male and 20% female, and six individuals reported nothing to disclose, yet had an Open Payments entry. The sum total of money reported for all discordant DynaMed contributors between 2013-2018 was approximately $2.79 million (or 29.2% of the total monies reported to DynaMed contributors). CONCLUSIONS: While this research does not ascertain that a conflict of interest or anything untoward, it does provide evidence that there was a significant difference between having an Open Payment entry among those who did versus those who did not disclose a conflict of interest. Websites such as UpToDate and DynaMed should consider implementing a more stringent conflict of interest policy and employ an unbiased team to verify self-reported disclosure statuses among its content contributors. Similarly, physicians who use such informational websites to inform their clinical decision making should look beyond a contributors self-reported disclosure status and verify relevant financial remuneration from the healthcare industry via Open Payments or Dollars for Docs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document