A systematic review of the quality of cardiovascular surgery studies that extracted data from the MAUDE database.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate opportunities and limitations of using the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database for cardiovascular surgery research, we analyzed the quality of studies having ever used MAUDE, in the field of cardiovascular surgery. METHODS: We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar for randomized and nonrandomized studies, from inception to July 2019. Two authors evaluated the quality of the retrieved observational studies, according to the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tool for either case series or cross-sectional studies. These tools quantify the quality of case series and cohorts/cross-sectional studies, respectively, with nine and 14 queries. RESULTS: Fifty-eight studies were included in the final qualitative review. Of 58 identified studies, 32 were case series, 8 were abstracts of case series, and 13 were reviews or case discussion with an included series from MAUDE. Also, five articles were cross-sectional studies. Of the 32 formal case series, 26 (81%) were found to have poor quality. The most common reasons for a poor quality designation included a lack of consecutive participants, undetermined comparability of participants, and undetermined follow-up adequacy. Only one out of five cross-sectional studies had fair quality; four others were evaluated as poor quality studies. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiovascular surgery studies using the MAUDE database, whether case series or cross-sectional design, are mostly of poor quality. Their low quality is partly caused by poor study design, but mainly by intrinsic limitations to the MAUDE database: cases recruited are not consecutive; patient characteristics are not detailed enough to allow a meaningful comparison of patient characteristics between different patient entries; outcome measures are unclear; there is a limited follow-up; and time-to-event data are lacking. We conclude that the quality of cardiovascular surgery publications that rely on data from MAUDE could be improved if investigators were to extract all relevant data points from MAUDE entries, then apply standard quality assessment tools in compiling and reporting the data. MAUDE might be improved if it used medical case report standards during the process of reporting and indexing adverse events. To calculate the incidence rate of any adverse event, all event-free cases, as well as all adverse events in patients using a device, are required. Neither of these two variables is available in the MAUDE at the time of writing.

Assessment of self-reported financial conflicts of interest in vascular surgery studies.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: With increased collaboration between surgeons and industry, there has been a push towards improving transparency of conflicts of interest (COIs). This study aims to determine the accuracy of reporting of COIs among studies in major vascular surgery journals. METHODS: A literature search identified all comparative studies published from January 2018 through December 2018 from three major United States vascular surgery journals (Journal of Vascular Surgery, Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, and Annals of Vascular Surgery). Industry payments were collected using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. COI discrepancies were identified by comparing author declaration statements with payments found for the year of publication and year prior. RESULTS: A total of 239 studies (1642 authors) were identified. Two hundred twenty-one studies (92%) and 669 authors (63%) received undisclosed payments when utilizing a cut-off payment amount of $250. In 2018, 10,778 payments (totaling $22,174,578) were made by 145 companies. Food and beverage payments were the most commonly reported transaction (42%), but accounted for only 3% of total reported monetary values. Authors who accurately disclosed payments received significantly higher median general payments compared with authors who did not accurately disclose payments ($56,581 [interquartile range, $2441-$100,551] vs $2361 [interquartile range, $525-$9,699]; P < .001). When stratifying by dollar-amount discrepancy, the proportions of authors receiving undisclosed payments decreased with increasing payment thresholds. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that first and senior authors were both significantly more likely to have undisclosed payments (odds ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-3.6 and odds ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-5.2, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant discordance between self-reported COI in vascular surgery studies compared with payments received in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. This study highlights the need for increased efforts to both improve definitions of what constitutes a relevant COI and encourage a standardized reporting process for vascular surgery studies.

Reporting of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Studies of Placental Membrane Allografts.

Objective: To systematically review the accuracy of self-reported financial conflicts of interest (COI) by authors of placental membrane allograft product studies. Approach: A PubMed search identified placental membrane allograft studies published between 2015 and 2019. Industry payments were collected using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database. Self-declared COI were compared with recorded payments. Risk factors for positive product recommendation were determined at study and author levels. Results: Eighty-nine studies (417 authors) were identified. Seventy-five studies (84%) had at least one author receive undisclosed payments. From 2015 to 2019, 5,841 general payments (totaling $15,558,026) and 1,234 research payments (totaling $18,290,062) were made by 46 companies. Travel/lodging was the most commonly reported transaction (34%). Authors were comprised mostly of podiatrists (27%), plastic surgeons (15%), and orthopedic surgeons (15%). Comparative studies were less likely to have a positive product recommendation compared to noncomparative studies (odds ratio [OR] 0.204, 95% confidence interval 0.06-0.066, p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis showed no association between COI discrepancy and product recommendation. Innovation: The accuracy of self-reported financial COI in placental membrane studies is evaluated for the first time. Conclusion: The majority of placental membrane product studies did not declare all industry payments. Whether these payments represent "relevant COI" remains unclear. In addition, not all placental product companies report to the Open Payments database, suggesting that the issue may be even more significant. This study highlights the need for improved definitions of "relevant COI," a standardized reporting system across journals, and the uniform participation of all medical product vendors.