Association between Industry Payments and Published Position on Use of Devices for the Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of industry payments to authors of opinion articles on the Urolift and Rezum devices. We also examined the extent to which authors omitted acknowledgements of financial conflicts-of-interest. METHODS: We searched Google Scholar for all articles that cite either of the respective pivotal trials for these devices. 2 blinded urologists coded the articles as favorable or neutral. A separate blinded researcher recorded industry payments from the manufacturers using the Open Payments Program database. RESULTS: We identified 29 articles written by 27 unique authors from an initial screening list of 235 articles. Of these articles, 15 (52%) were coded as positive and 14 (48%) were coded as neutral. 20 (74%) authors have accepted payments from the manufacturer of the device. Since 2014, these authors have collectively received $270,000 from NeoTract and $314,000 from Boston Scientific. Of the 20 authors with payments, 9 (45%) received more than $10,000 from either manufacturer. Of authors with payments, 65% (13/20) contributed to only positive articles. Authors who received payments had more than 4 times the number of article contributions than did authors without payments (42 vs 10). Authors of at least one favorable article were more likely to have received payments from the device manufacturers than authors of neutral articles (P = .014, Chi-squared test). Most (80%, 16/20) authors with payments did not report a relevant conflict-of-interest within any of their articles. CONCLUSION: These data suggest a relationship between payments from a manufacturer and positive published position on that company's device. There may be a critical lack of published editorial pieces by authors without financial conflicts of interest.

[Actuality of conflicts of interests in medicine. From financial interests to the run for scientific publication]. / Actualité des conflits d'intérêts en médecine. Des intérêts financiers à la course à la publication scientifique.

Clinical practice and medical research can expose to several situations with risks of conflicts of interests. Such situations can induce attenuations of their primary professional interest in favor of, so-called, secondary interests, and leading to bias in their judgement and actions. In this area, if financial conflicts of interests are consistent and frequently dominant, intellectual conflicts of interests have to be analyzed and considered, like those amplified and even induced by the current tremendous competition for scientific publication. In this article, after a contextual review of conflicts of interests in medicine, we will document and discuss more specifically those frequently induced by leaks of financial interests and those linked by evolutions of the current scientific expansion and competition.

Emergency Medicine Journal Editorial Boards: Analysis of Gender, H-Index, Publications, Academic Rank, and Leadership Roles.

INTRODUCTION: Our goal in this study was to determine female representation on editorial boards of high-ranking emergency medicine (EM) journals. In addition, we examined factors associated with gender disparity, including board members' academic rank, departmental leadership position, h-index, total publications, total citations, and total publishing years. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we examined EM editorial boards with an impact factor of 1 or greater according to the Clarivate Journal Citations Report for a total of 16 journals. All board members with a doctor of medicine or doctor of osteopathic medicine degree, or international equivalent were included, resulting in 781 included board members. We analyzed board members' gender, academic rank, departmental leadership position, h-index, total publications, total citations, and total publishing years. RESULTS: Gender disparity was clearly notable, with men holding 87.3% (682/781) of physician editorial board positions and women holding 12.7% (99/781) of positions. Only 6.6% (1/15) of included editorial board chiefs were women. Male editorial board members possessed higher h-indices, total citations, and more publishing years than their female counterparts. Male board members held a greater number of departmental leadership positions, as well as higher academic ranks. CONCLUSION: Significant gender disparity exists on EM editorial boards. Substantial inequalities between men and women board members exist in both the academic and departmental realms. Addressing these inequalities will likely be an integral part of achieving gender parity on editorial boards.

What Is the Price of Science?

The peer-reviewed scientific literature is the bedrock of science. However, scientific publishing is undergoing dramatic changes, which include the expansion of open access, an increased number of for-profit publication houses, and ready availability of preprint manuscripts that have not been peer reviewed. In this opinion article, we discuss the inequities and concerns that these changes have wrought.

Four Examples of Potential Competing Interests Affecting How Clinicians Read and Use Research: Financial, Academic, Idealistic, and Personal.

The integrity of published scientific literature relies on transparency. There are processes in place to promote transparency and enhance the trustworthiness of study results. Journals, including the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT), require full disclosure of competing interests when authors submit manuscripts for publication. A competing interest is "a financial or intellectual relationship that may impact an individual's ability to approach a scientific question with an open mind." The purpose of this editorial is to discuss the types of competing interests that may influence the work of authors. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(3):116-117. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.0103.

Female Authorship Publishing Trends and Forecasting in Pediatric Urology: Are We Closer to Gender Equality?

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature of 5 pediatric urology topics and conduct gender based and forecasting analyses of first and corresponding authors. METHODS: A PubMed search was performed for hypospadias, hydronephrosis, vesicoureteral reflux, bladder and bowel dysfunction, and cryptorchidism over 3 decades from 1990 to 2019. The 50 most relevant "best match" papers from each decade were extracted by topic. Author gender, specialty, and advanced degrees, along with journal and publication variables were collected. Forecasting analyses were conducted through the Holt-Winters method. RESULTS: Among 750 papers analyzed, 78% of corresponding and 70% of first authors were male. A significant upward trend was observed for female-authored publications in both first and corresponding positions over time (P <.01). Forecasting analyses predicted a continuing upward trend for female corresponding (55%) and first authors (83%) by 2049. Most studies originated from pediatric urology (59%), followed by pediatric surgery (9%) and endocrinology/genetics (5%). Papers focused in The Journal of Urology (30%) with the majority originating from the United States (38%). Most were retrospective (44%) and discussed medical (54%) versus surgical management (20%). CONCLUSION: The majority of pediatric urology literature has been generated by male authors. A persistent, rising trend in female authorship across all examined pediatric urology topics was noted. These encouraging findings are projected to continue to increase in the future, suggesting a movement toward equal and fair gender representation in authorship in pediatric urology.

From symbiont to parasite: the evolution of for-profit science publishing.

Two 17th century institutions-learned societies and scientific journals-transformed science in ways that still dominate our professional lives today. Learned societies like the American Society for Cell Biology remain relevant because they provide forums for sharing results, discussing the practice of science, and projecting our voices to the public and the policy makers. Scientific journals still disseminate our work, but in the Internet-connected world of the 21st century, this is no longer their critical function. Journals remain relevant almost entirely because they provide a playing field for scientific and professional competition: to claim credit for a discovery, we publish it in a peer-reviewed journal; to get a job in academia or money to run a lab, we present these published papers to universities and funding agencies. Publishing is so embedded in the practice of science that whoever controls the journals controls access to the entire profession. We must reform our methods for evaluating the contributions of younger scientists and deflate the power of a small number of "elite" journals. More generally, given the recent failure of research institutions around the world to strike satisfactory deals with publishing giant Elsevier, the time has come to examine the motives and methods of those to whom we have entrusted the keys to the kingdom of science.

[Conflicts of interest in the medical profession]. / Conflictos de interés en la profesión médica.

In the last decades the world of medicine has become familiar with the disclosure of conflicts of interest (CDI). The requirement for authors to declare their CDIs concerning their publications is a common issue. Another topic for CDI is related to the medical decision making on prescription. Finally, professionals being in positions of responsibility in professional societies or associations and healthcare institutions are asked to show their disclosure of CDI. These debates show up the interest of democratic societies for justice and social ethics that demand fair play in making decisions that may affect third parties, particularly patients. In the present work, the concept and types of CDIs are analyzed, and authors make proposals for the management of CDI in the medical profession.

Conflict of interest. Why is it important?

Scientific publications are the main medium for distributing scientific contributions, be they original studies, reviews, clinical guidelines, editorials or consensus statements promoted by scientific societies, and they may be privately-, state- or industry-funded. The relationship between authors and sources of funding must be expressed transparently, truthfully and completely always ensuring a climate of reciprocal trust between journals and readers.