How prevalent are financial conflicts of interest in dermatology randomized controlled trials? A cross‐sectional study
How prevalent are financial conflicts of interest in dermatology randomized controlled trials? A cross‐sectional study
复制标题
皮肤科随机对照试验中的经济利益冲突有多普遍？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2021
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Hong
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
L. Steele;E. Earp;A. Hong
自2004年对皮肤病学随机对照试验（RCT）中的利益冲突（COI）进行最后一次评估以来，一些国家已经引入了透明数据库。我们评估了皮肤病学RCT中财务COI的流行率，并使用透明数据库量化了研究申办者向学术/临床作者支付的费用，这些数据库在美国，法国，澳大利亚，比利时和荷兰可用，而英国有一个非强制性的透明数据库。我们纳入了2019年发表的前10名皮肤病学期刊和前7名普通医学期刊的RCT。该研究评估了83项RCT，在69%中确定了COI。流行率最高的是完全由行业资助的试验（46/47，98%），其中包括对学术/临床作者的个人付款（96%的试验）和作者是员工/股东（96%）。确定了31/56（55%）名学术/临床第一/最终作者的付款（中位数付款28 746美元，最高597 299美元，四分位数范围17 061-146 253美元），24/31（77%）的付款均> 10 000美元。
Since the last assessment of conflicts of interest (COIs) in dermatology randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 2004, several countries have introduced transparency databases. We assessed the prevalence of financial COIs in dermatology RCTs and quantified payments from study sponsors to academic/clinical authors using transparency databases, which are available in the USA, France, Australia, Belgium and the Netherlands, while the UK has a noncompulsory transparency database. We included RCTs from the top 10 dermatology journals and the top 7 general medical journals published in 2019. The study assessed 83 RCTs, and COIs were identified in 69%. The highest prevalence was in exclusively industry‐funded trials (46/47, 98%), which consisted of personal payments to an academic/clinical author (96% of trials) and having authors who were employees/stockholders (96%). Payments were identified for 31/56 (55%) academic/clinical first/final authors (median payment US$28 746, maximum US$597 299, interquartile range US$17 061–146 253), and 24/31 payments (77%) payments were each > US$10 000.