The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery

The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Volume 89, Issue 3

Scientific Articles | March 01, 2007

Conflict of Interest in Orthopaedic Research: An Association Between Findings and Funding in Scientific Presentations

Kanu Okike, BA¹; Mininder S. Kocher, MD, MPH¹; Charles T. Mehlman, DO, MPH²; Mohit Bhandari, MD, MSc³

¹ Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 300 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02115. E-mail address for K. Okike: kanu_okike@hms.harvard.edu
² Department of Pediatric Orthopaedic Surgery, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, 3333 Burnet Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45229
³ Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hamilton General Hospital, 7 North, Suite 727, Barton Street East, Hamilton, ON L8L 2X2, Canada

View Disclosures and Other Information

Disclosure: The authors did not receive any outside funding or grants in support of their research for or preparation of this work. One or more of the authors or a member of his or her immediate family received, in any one year, payments or other benefits in excess of $10,000 or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from commercial entities (DePuy, Smith and Nephew, Stryker, and Zimmer). Also, commercial entities (DePuy, Medtronic, Stryker, and Synthes) paid or directed in any one year, or agreed to pay or direct, benefits in excess of $10,000 to a research fund, foundation, division, center, clinical practice, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors, or a member of their immediate families, are affiliated or associated.

Investigation performed at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated

J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2007 Mar 01;89(3):608-613. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00994

5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case

Article

Comments (0)

text A A A

Abstract

Background: Financial conflict of interest has been associated with an increased likelihood that authors will report positive study outcomes. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between types of declared conflict of interest and reported study outcomes in orthopaedic research.

Methods: The abstracts of all podium presentations given at the 2001 and 2002 Annual Meetings of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons were analyzed by three orthopaedic surgeons with advanced training in clinical epidemiology. The findings reported in each abstract were graded as positive, negative, neutral, or not applicable. Self-reported conflict of interest was recorded and classified.

Results: Conflicts of interest were reported in 40.8% (212) of 519 abstracts. The interobserver reliability of the grading of the study findings was acceptable (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.725). Rates of conflict of interest related to royalties, stock options, or consultant or employee status varied significantly by subspecialty field (p < 0.001). The overall rate of positive study findings was 84.0% (436 of the 519 abstracts). Positive findings were more common in studies authored by individuals with a conflict of interest related to royalties (98.4% [sixty of sixty-one] compared with 88.0% [381 of 433] for studies authored by individuals without a conflict of interest related to royalties; relative risk = 1.1 [95% confidence interval = 1.0 to 1.1]; p = 0.02), in studies authored by individuals with a conflict of interest related to stock options (100.0% [twenty-nine of twenty-nine] compared with 84.7% [394 of 465]; relative risk = 1.2 [95% confidence interval = 1.0 to 1.3]; p = 0.04), and in studies authored by individuals with a conflict of interest related to consultant or employee status (97.8% [ninety-one of ninety-three] compared with 89.0% [357 of 401]; relative risk = 1.1 [95% confidence interval = 1.0 to 1.2]; p = 0.01). Positive findings were not more common in studies authored by individuals with a conflict of interest related to research or institutional funding (93.5% [143 of 153] compared with 91.8% [313 of 341]; relative risk = 1.0 [95% confidence interval = 0.95 to 1.5]; p = 0.65). In the multivariate analysis, the factors that remained significant predictors of positive outcomes were royalties (p = 0.002) and consultant or employee status (p = 0.038).

Conclusions: Self-reported conflicts of interest are common in orthopaedic research, particularly in the subspecialty fields of adult reconstruction of the knee, adult reconstruction of the hip, and spine. Presentations authored by individuals with a conflict of interest related to royalties, stock options, or consulting or employee status were significantly more likely to describe positive findings. While there may be distinct benefits associated with industry support of orthopaedic research, safeguards must be established to maintain public trust in the medical research establishment.

Figures in this Article

Medical conflict of interest is defined as "a set of conditions in which professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as a patient's welfare or the validity of research) tends to be unduly influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain)."¹ Concerns about medical conflict of interest relate to its potential influence on patient care, clinical practice, and medical research. The concern about financial conflict of interest in medical research is well founded: one-quarter of all biomedical researchers receive funding from industry, and industry provides 70% of the money for drug trials in the United States^2,3.

The implications of the intimate involvement of industry in medical research are many. Most worrisome are recent studies demonstrating a significant association between industry funding and the publication of positive findings (p = 0.001, p < 0.05, p < 0.001, and p = 0.014)^4-7. A recent meta-analysis by Bekelman et al. indicated that industry sponsorship rendered a researcher more likely to arrive at pro-industry conclusions and to experience restrictions on data sharing or the publication of results².

Industry funding is prevalent in orthopaedic research. At the 2002 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Annual Meeting, one-third of all presenters reported a financial conflict of interest⁸. In a recent study of conflict of interest in orthopaedic research, Leopold et al. found that commercial funding was significantly associated with publication of a positive outcome (p = 0.025)⁹. However, that study did not distinguish between the different types of financial conflict of interest (for example, research and institutional support compared with royalties, stock options, and employee or consultant status). The purpose of the current study was to investigate the association between different types of financial conflict of interest and study outcomes in presentations of orthopaedic research.

Materials and Methods

Materials and Methods | Results | Discussion | References

Eligibility Criteria

All (608) podium presentations given at the 2001 and 2002 Annual Meetings of AAOS, including clinical as well as basic-science presentations, were reviewed. Since the system used to classify study findings applies only to studies in which an item is evaluated (as described below), all (eighty-nine) studies not involving an evaluation were excluded. Studies to be excluded were identified by means of hand-searching of presentation abstracts. The 519 studies that did involve an evaluation of some kind were independently reviewed by three orthopaedic surgeons with advanced training in clinical epidemiology from three different institutions across North America.

Conflict of Interest and Study Findings

The orthopaedic subspecialty field of each paper was recorded as adult hip reconstruction, adult knee reconstruction, basic science, foot and ankle, hand and wrist, pediatrics, practice management/nonclinical, rehabilitation medicine, shoulder and elbow, sports medicine and arthroscopy, spine, musculoskeletal tumor and metabolic disease, or trauma.

Conflict of interest was self-reported and was coded, according to AAOS criteria, as research or institutional support (code A), miscellaneous funding (code B), royalties (code C), stock options (code D), or consultant/employee (code E).

Reviewers classified the findings of each study as positive, negative, neutral, or not applicable. Studies that favored the experimental item over the existing standard of care, or otherwise arrived at a favorable conclusion regarding the item being evaluated, were graded as having positive findings. Conversely, studies that led to an unfavorable conclusion regarding the item being evaluated or favored the existing standard of care over the experimental item were graded as having negative findings. Studies that showed the experimental item to be as good as the existing standard of care were graded as neutral. All other studies, including those in which no value judgment was made, were categorized as not applicable. Discrepancies in the grading of a study outcome were resolved by consensus.

Data Analysis

Reviewer agreement in the grading of study outcomes was assessed with reliability analysis with use of the intraclass correlation coefficient (2,1)¹⁰. Comparisons of rates of conflict of interest according to subspecialty and comparisons of rates of positive findings according to the type of conflict of interest were done with use of the Fisher exact test. Relative risks and associated 95% confidence intervals were calculated for these comparisons. Multivariate analysis was performed with use of a binary logistic regression model with backward stepwise variable selection. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS (version 14.0; SPSS, Chicago, Illinois) and SAS (version 9; SAS, Cary, North Carolina) software.

Results

Materials and Methods | Results | Discussion | References

Study Characteristics

Of 608 podium presentations given at the 2001 and 2002 AAOS Annual Meetings, 519 met the inclusion criteria. The most common subspecialty fields were adult hip reconstruction (16.4%; eighty-five of the 519 presentations), adult knee reconstruction (12.5%; sixty-five), shoulder and elbow (12.1%; sixty-three), and trauma (10.2%; fifty-three) (Table I). The levels of evidence were generally low, with case series (Level IV) accounting for 58.6% (304) of the 519 studies, and randomized controlled trials (Level I) accounting for only 8.1% (forty-two) (Table I).

View Larger

TABLE I Characteristics of Included Papers

Characteristic	No. (%)
Subspecialty field
Adult hip reconstruction	85 (16.4)
Adult knee reconstruction	65 (12.5)
Basic science	30 (5.8)
Foot and ankle	18 (3.5)
Hand and wrist	28 (5.4)
Pediatrics	36 (6.9)
Practice management/nonclinical	17 (3.3)
Rehabilitation medicine	7 (1.3)
Shoulder and elbow	63 (12.1)
Sports medicine and arthroscopy	47 (9.1)
Spine	50 (9.6)
Tumor and metabolic disease	20 (3.9)
Trauma	53 (10.2)
Study design
Case series	304 (58.6)
Case-control study	3 (0.6)
Cohort study	139 (26.8)
Randomized controlled trial	42 (8.1)
Meta-analysis	1 (0.2)
Other/indeterminate	30 (5.8)
Total	519 (100.0)

Add to My JBJS

TABLE I Characteristics of Included Papers

Characteristic	No. (%)
Subspecialty field
Adult hip reconstruction	85 (16.4)
Adult knee reconstruction	65 (12.5)
Basic science	30 (5.8)
Foot and ankle	18 (3.5)
Hand and wrist	28 (5.4)
Pediatrics	36 (6.9)
Practice management/nonclinical	17 (3.3)
Rehabilitation medicine	7 (1.3)
Shoulder and elbow	63 (12.1)
Sports medicine and arthroscopy	47 (9.1)
Spine	50 (9.6)
Tumor and metabolic disease	20 (3.9)
Trauma	53 (10.2)
Study design
Case series	304 (58.6)
Case-control study	3 (0.6)
Cohort study	139 (26.8)
Randomized controlled trial	42 (8.1)
Meta-analysis	1 (0.2)
Other/indeterminate	30 (5.8)
Total	519 (100.0)

Conflicts of Interest

The authors self-reported financial conflict of interest as research/institutional support (code A) in 31.0% (161) of the 519 abstracts, as royalties (code C) in 12.3% (sixty-four), as stock options (code D) in 4.8% (twenty-five), and as consultant/employee status (code E) in 18.9% (ninety-eight). Some authors (9.8%; fifty-one) reported miscellaneous conflicts (code B). In all, financial conflicts of interest were reported in 40.8% (212) of the 519 papers presented (Table II).

View Larger

TABLE II Prevalence of Conflicts of Interest by Type and Overall

Conflict of Interest	No. (%)
Research/institutional support (code A)	161 (31.0)
Miscellaneous funding (code B)	51 (9.8)
Royalties (code C)	64 (12.3)
Stock options (code D)	25 (4.8)
Consultant/employee (code E)	98 (18.9)
Any conflict of interest (code A, B, C, D, or E)*	212 (40.8)
No conflict of interest reported	307 (59.2)
Total	519 (100.0)

Several papers reported more than one type of conflict of interest.

Add to My JBJS

TABLE II Prevalence of Conflicts of Interest by Type and Overall

Conflict of Interest	No. (%)
Research/institutional support (code A)	161 (31.0)
Miscellaneous funding (code B)	51 (9.8)
Royalties (code C)	64 (12.3)
Stock options (code D)	25 (4.8)
Consultant/employee (code E)	98 (18.9)
Any conflict of interest (code A, B, C, D, or E)*	212 (40.8)
No conflict of interest reported	307 (59.2)
Total	519 (100.0)

Several papers reported more than one type of conflict of interest.

The rates of conflicts of interest related to royalties, stock options, or consultant/employee status varied significantly by subspecialty field (p < 0.001) (Table III). Such conflicts of interest were most common in the subspecialty fields of adult knee reconstruction (41.5%; twenty-seven of sixty-five), adult hip reconstruction (41.2%; thirty-five of eighty-five), and spine (40.0%; twenty of fifty). Such conflicts of interest were least common in the subspecialty fields of trauma (9.4%; five of fifty-three), foot and ankle (11.1%; two of eighteen), and pediatric orthopaedics (11.1%; four of thirty-six). Overall rates of conflict of interest (all types) also varied significantly by subspecialty field (p < 0.01) (Table III).

View Larger

TABLE III Prevalence of Conflicts of Interest, By Field

Subspecialty Field	Prevalence of Conflicts Related to Royalties, Stock Options, or Consultant/Employee Status	Prevalence of Any Type of Conflict of Interest
Adult knee reconstruction	41.5% (27/65)	47.7% (31/65)
Adult hip reconstruction	41.2% (35/85)	54.1% (46/85)
Spine	40.0% (20/50)	54.0% (27/50)
Shoulder and elbow	30.2% (19/63)	41.3% (26/63)
Rehabilitation medicine	28.6% (2/7)	42.9% (3/7)
Practice management/nonclinical	23.5% (4/17)	23.5% (4/17)
Basic science	23.3% (7/30)	46.7% (14/30)
Tumor and metabolic disease	20.0% (4/20)	50.0% (10/20)
Hand and wrist	17.9% (5/28)	21.4% (6/28)
Sports medicine and arthroscopy	14.9% (7/47)	34.0% (16/47)
Foot and ankle	11.1% (2/18)	16.7% (3/18)
Pediatrics	11.1% (4/36)	30.6% (11/36)
Trauma	9.4% (5/53)	28.3% (15/53)
Total	27.2% (141/519)	40.8% (212/519)

Add to My JBJS

TABLE III Prevalence of Conflicts of Interest, By Field

Subspecialty Field	Prevalence of Conflicts Related to Royalties, Stock Options, or Consultant/Employee Status	Prevalence of Any Type of Conflict of Interest
Adult knee reconstruction	41.5% (27/65)	47.7% (31/65)
Adult hip reconstruction	41.2% (35/85)	54.1% (46/85)
Spine	40.0% (20/50)	54.0% (27/50)
Shoulder and elbow	30.2% (19/63)	41.3% (26/63)
Rehabilitation medicine	28.6% (2/7)	42.9% (3/7)
Practice management/nonclinical	23.5% (4/17)	23.5% (4/17)
Basic science	23.3% (7/30)	46.7% (14/30)
Tumor and metabolic disease	20.0% (4/20)	50.0% (10/20)
Hand and wrist	17.9% (5/28)	21.4% (6/28)
Sports medicine and arthroscopy	14.9% (7/47)	34.0% (16/47)
Foot and ankle	11.1% (2/18)	16.7% (3/18)
Pediatrics	11.1% (4/36)	30.6% (11/36)
Trauma	9.4% (5/53)	28.3% (15/53)
Total	27.2% (141/519)	40.8% (212/519)

Study Findings

The interobserver reliability for the classification of study findings was acceptable (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.725). The overall rate of positive findings was 84.0% (436 of 519), whereas the rates of negative and neutral findings were 6.4% (thirty-three of 519) and 4.4% (twenty-three of 519), respectively.

Relationship Between Study Findings and Conflicts of Interest

Positive findings were more common in studies authored by individuals with a conflict of interest related to royalties (98.4% [sixty of sixty-one] compared with 88.0% [381 of 433]; relative risk = 1.1 [95% confidence interval = 1.0 to 1.1]; p = 0.02), in studies authored by individuals with a conflict of interest related to stock options (100.0% [twenty-nine of twenty-nine] compared with 84.7% [394 of 465]; relative risk = 1.2 [95% confidence interval = 1.0 to 1.3]; p = 0.04), and in studies authored by individuals with a conflict of interest related to consultant or employee status (97.8% [ninety-one of ninety-three] compared with 89.0% [357 of 401]; relative risk = 1.1 [95% confidence interval = 1.0 to 1.2]; p = 0.01). Positive findings were not more common in studies authored by individuals with a conflict of interest related to research or institutional funding (93.5% [143 of 153] compared with 91.8% [313 of 341]; relative risk = 1.0 [95% confidence interval = 0.95 to 1.5]; p = 0.65) (Table IV).

View Larger

TABLE IV Relationship Between Conflict of Interest and Direction of Study Findings

Type of Conflict of Interest	Proportion of Studies Demonstrating Positive Findings When Conflict Present	Proportion of Studies Demonstrating Positive Findings When Conflict Absent	Relative Risk (95% Confidence Interval)	P Value
Research/institutional support (code A)	93.5% (143/153)	91.8% (313/341)	1.0 (0.95-1.5)	0.65
Royalties (code C)	98.4% (60/61)	88.0% (381/433)	1.1 (1.0-1.1)	0.02*
Stock options (code D)	100.0% (29/29)	84.7% (394/465)	1.2 (1.0-1.3)	0.04*
Consultant/employee (code E)	97.8% (91/93)	89.0% (357/401)	1.1 (1.0-1.2)	0.01*

Significant at the p = 0.05 level.

Add to My JBJS

TABLE IV Relationship Between Conflict of Interest and Direction of Study Findings

Type of Conflict of Interest	Proportion of Studies Demonstrating Positive Findings When Conflict Present	Proportion of Studies Demonstrating Positive Findings When Conflict Absent	Relative Risk (95% Confidence Interval)	P Value
Research/institutional support (code A)	93.5% (143/153)	91.8% (313/341)	1.0 (0.95-1.5)	0.65
Royalties (code C)	98.4% (60/61)	88.0% (381/433)	1.1 (1.0-1.1)	0.02*
Stock options (code D)	100.0% (29/29)	84.7% (394/465)	1.2 (1.0-1.3)	0.04*
Consultant/employee (code E)	97.8% (91/93)	89.0% (357/401)	1.1 (1.0-1.2)	0.01*

Significant at the p = 0.05 level.

Multivariate Analysis

The final multivariate logistic regression model included a variable for subspecialty as well as five variables related to the type of conflict of interest (research/institutional support, miscellaneous funding, royalties, stock options, and consultant/employee status). In the multivariate analysis, two factors remained significant predictors of positive study outcomes: royalties (relative risk = 1.15 [95% confidence interval = 1.11 to 1.17]; p = 0.002) and consultant/employee status (relative risk = 1.15 [95% confidence interval = 1.02 to 1.17]; p = 0.038). Subspecialty, research/institutional support, miscellaneous funding, and stock options were not found to be significant predictors of study outcome (Table V).

View Larger

TABLE V Results of Multivariate Analysis

Variable	Odds Ratio (95% Confidence Interval)	Relative Risk* (95% Confidence Interval)	P Value
Subspecialty field	0.96 (0.90-1.03)	0.99 (0.98-1.00)	0.287
Research/institutional support (code A)	1.41 (0.68-2.95)	1.05 (0.93-1.11)	0.357
Miscellaneous funding (code B)	0.44 (0.13-1.46)	0.84 (0.50-1.05)	0.178
Royalties (code C)	8.28 (3.03-22.64)	1.15 (1.11-1.17)	0.002†
Stock options (code D)	5.82 (0.69-48.87)	1.14 (0.94-1.17)	0.079
Consultant/employee (code E)	8.06 (1.17-55.60)	1.15 (1.02-1.17)	0.038†

Corrected for common outcome according to the methods described by Zhang and Yu¹⁹. †Significant at the p = 0.05 level.

Add to My JBJS

TABLE V Results of Multivariate Analysis

Variable	Odds Ratio (95% Confidence Interval)	Relative Risk* (95% Confidence Interval)	P Value
Subspecialty field	0.96 (0.90-1.03)	0.99 (0.98-1.00)	0.287
Research/institutional support (code A)	1.41 (0.68-2.95)	1.05 (0.93-1.11)	0.357
Miscellaneous funding (code B)	0.44 (0.13-1.46)	0.84 (0.50-1.05)	0.178
Royalties (code C)	8.28 (3.03-22.64)	1.15 (1.11-1.17)	0.002†
Stock options (code D)	5.82 (0.69-48.87)	1.14 (0.94-1.17)	0.079
Consultant/employee (code E)	8.06 (1.17-55.60)	1.15 (1.02-1.17)	0.038†

Corrected for common outcome according to the methods described by Zhang and Yu¹⁹. †Significant at the p = 0.05 level.

Discussion

Materials and Methods | Results | Discussion | References

Our observational study of podium presentations given at the 2001 and 2002 Annual Meetings of the AAOS demonstrated that self-reported conflicts of interest are common in orthopaedic research, particularly in the subspecialty fields of adult reconstruction of the knee, adult reconstruction of the hip, and spine. In the multivariate analysis, royalties and consultant/employee status were found to be significantly associated with positive study findings.

In contrast to previous investigators who examined the association between study outcomes and generic conflict of interest, we differentiated between different types of financial conflict of interest using the AAOS classification scheme. This resulted in a more detailed examination of financial conflict of interest of authors of presentations of orthopaedic research. Another strength of our study was the large number of abstracts that were analyzed. The major limitation of this study is that conflict of interest was self-reported. In particular, it is likely that conflicts may have been (intentionally or unintentionally) underreported and that the type of conflict may have been identified inaccurately in some cases. The high prevalence of positive results in the studies (84%) is also a limitation and may have been due in part to a tendency for studies with positive results to be preferentially selected for presentation. This trend appears analogous to the phenomenon of publication bias seen in the editorial review process, whereby the strength or direction of a study's findings influences whether or not it will be published¹¹. Finally, the modest nature of the observed associations (relative risks on the order of 1.1 to 1.2) may be considered a limitation of our study. These modest values may be due, at least in part, to the fact that we compared rates of positive findings, which were quite common in the study sample. Had we chosen to compare rates of non-positive findings, the relative risks would have been on the order of 0.12 to 0.17 (corresponding to a decrease of 83% to 88%).

Other studies have identified a relationship between conflict of interest and the reporting of positive research findings. Kjaergard and Als-Nielsen⁷ reviewed all randomized clinical trials published in the British Medical Journal between 1997 and 2001 and found that authors' conclusions were significantly more positive in trials funded by for-profit companies than they were in trials by investigators without competing interests or in trials funded by both for-profit and non-profit organizations (p = 0.014). Friedman and Richter⁶ reviewed all original manuscripts published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine during 2001 and found a "strong association" between investigator conflict of interest and positive findings. When the relationship between conflict of interest and negative findings was examined, the strength of the association increased, leading the authors to conclude that "the odds are extremely small that negative results would be published by authors with conflict of interest." In addition, a systematic review carried out by Bekelman et al.² demonstrated that industry funding of research was associated with positive outcomes, limitations on data-sharing, and restrictions on the publication of results. One of us (M.B.) and colleagues⁵ examined 332 randomized clinical trials (including 37% for which industry support had been declared) and found a significant association between industry funding and positive outcomes (p < 0.05). On the other hand, Clifford et al.¹² found no association between the funding source and the study outcome after reviewing 100 randomized clinical trials of pharmaceutical products in five leading medical journals.

In a study of the orthopaedic literature, Leopold et al.⁹ reviewed all articles published in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American volume), the Journal of Arthroplasty, and the American Journal of Sports Medicine between 1999 and 2000 and found that 78.9% of commercially funded studies, as opposed to 63.3% of non-industry-funded studies, demonstrated a positive outcome (p = 0.025). They also found that neither the country of origin nor the involvement of a statistician or epidemiologist was an important predictor of study outcome. The overall methodological quality of the studies included in their review was low, with 21% being prospective, 10.5% stating a hypothesis, and only 3.5% involving a randomized design.

Leopold et al.⁹ made the appropriate epidemiological point that the observed association between industry funding and positive outcomes does not necessarily imply causation. A commonly offered explanation for the association between industry funding and positive findings is that for-profit companies preferentially fund studies that are likely to succeed¹³ and are more likely to suppress publication of negative studies¹⁴. In the current study, however, royalties, stock options, and consultant/employee status were associated with an increased likelihood of positive outcomes, whereas the receipt of research or institutional support from industry was not. If well-targeted industry funding and industrial suppression of negative results were the only factors driving the observed association between industry funding and positive outcomes, one would expect this association to hold for all types of industry funding and not just for incentives directed at individual investigators. Although it is disturbing, one must consider the possibility that some investigators may be swayed by the financial benefits offered by industry. In the clinical arena, it has been shown that physicians' prescribing patterns are indeed affected by industry incentives, in spite of the fact that many physicians do not believe this will happen¹⁵.

There may be distinct benefits associated with industry support of orthopaedic research. Industry funding promotes technological advancement and in many cases allows research that would otherwise not be possible¹⁶. However, industry funding of clinical research is also associated with a number of risks. In addition to jeopardizing the safety of human research subjects, academic-industrial relationships may pose threats to the integrity of the research process by restricting communication within the scientific community and causing some researchers to (knowingly or unknowingly) bias their findings in favor of the funding sponsor¹⁷. Even if industrial support does not actually influence the way that an investigator evaluates an implant or device, public perception that such research is biased threatens to erode trust in the scientific community.

To date, most attempts to address conflict of interest in clinical research have centered on disclosure. The AAOS, for example, began requiring all presenting authors to self-disclose their conflicts of interest at the 1985 Annual Meeting⁸. Now, more than two decades later, additional steps may be required to ensure the integrity of orthopaedic research and maintain public trust in the medical research establishment. Although disclosure is an important first step, it has not been shown to eliminate the negative effects of conflict of interest when used in isolation¹⁸. Additional safeguards regarding the presentation (and publication) of research could include penalties for failure to accurately disclose all conflicts of interest, acceptance of research support only when it does not impose restrictions, mandatory standardized research contracts with industry that prevent the suppression of negative results, and independent statistical review. Other potential options include the pooling of funding derived from industry sources and the restriction of presentation and publication by individuals with a direct financial interest such as royalties, stock options, or consultant or employee status. The elimination of financial conflicts of interest in medical research also remains a laudable goal¹⁸. ?

References

Materials and Methods | Results | Discussion | References

Thompson DF. Understanding financial conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med. 1993;329: 573-6.329573 1993 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003;289: 454-65.289454 2003 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Bodenheimer T. Uneasy alliance—clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. N Engl J Med. 2000;342: 1539-44.3421539 2000 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, Kjaergard LL. Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA. 2003;290: 921-8.290921 2003 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D, Montori VM, Schunemann H, Sprague S, Mears D, Schemitsch EH, Heels-Ansdell D, Devereaux PJ. Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. CMAJ. 2004;170: 477-80.170477 2004 [PubMed]

Friedman LS, Richter ED. Relationship between conflicts of interest and research results. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19: 51-6.1951 2004 [CrossRef]

Kjaergard LL, Als-Nielsen B. Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ. BMJ. 2002;325: 249.325249 2002 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Zuckerman JD, Prasarn M, Kubiak EN, Koval KJ. Conflict of interest in orthopaedic research. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86: 423-8.86423 2004

Leopold SS, Warme WJ, Fritz Braunlich E, Shott S. Association between funding source and study outcome in orthopaedic research. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;415: 293-301.415293 2003 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86: 420-8.86420 1979 [CrossRef]

Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA. 1990;263: 1385-9.2631385 1990 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Clifford TJ, Barrowman NJ, Moher D. Funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality: are they related? Results of a pilot study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2002;2: 18.218 2002 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Hirsch L. Randomized clinical trials: what gets published, and when? CMAJ. 2004;170: 481-3.170481 2004 [PubMed]

The "file drawer" phenomenon: suppressing clinical evidence. CMAJ. 2004;170: 437, 439.170437 2004 [PubMed]

Orlowski JP, Wateska L. The effects of pharmaceutical firm enticements on physician prescribing patterns. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Chest. 1992;102: 270-3.102270 1992 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Brand RA, Buckwalter JA, Talman CL, Happe DG. Industrial support of orthopaedic research in the academic setting. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;412: 45-53.41245 2003 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Blumenthal D. Academic-industrial relationships in the life sciences. N Engl J Med. 2003;349: 2452-9.3492452 2003 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Brennan TA, Rothman DJ, Blank L, Blumenthal D, Chimonas SC, Cohen JJ, Goldman J, Kassirer JP, Kimball H, Naughton J, Smelser N. Health industry practices that create conflicts of interest: a policy proposal for academic medical centers. JAMA. 2006;295: 429-33.295429 2006 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Zhang J, Yu KF. What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. JAMA. 1998;280: 1690-1.2801690 1998 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Topics

conflict of interest ; consultant ; reconstructive surgical procedures ; research outcome

Username

Password

Access for Patients

Forgot Password?

Have a subscription to the print edition?

Not a Subscriber?

Buy this Article

Get online access for 30 days for $35

New to JBJS?

Subscribe to the online edition for 30 days for $75

Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities, to comment on public articles, or to sign up for alerts.

Have a subscription to the print edition?

Current subscribers to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in either the print or quarterly DVD formats receive free online access to JBJS.org.

Activate your online account now

Forgot your password?

Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.

Username:*

Email Address:*

Forgot your username or need assistance? Please contact customer service at subs@jbjs.org. If your access is provided
by your institution, please contact you librarian or administrator for username and password information. Institutional
administrators, to reset your institution's master username or password, please contact subs@jbjs.org

References

Accreditation Statement

These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.

CME Activities Associated with This Article

Submit a Comment

Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

* = Required Field

Comment Author(s) * (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)

Example: John Doe

Affiliation & Institution*

Comment Title*

Comment*

Cancel

Print
PDF
Email

Recipient(s) will receive an email with a link (good for 5 days) to 'Conflict of Interest in Orthopaedic Research: An Association Between Findings and Funding in Scientific Presentations'.
Your Name:*
Example: John Doe

Email Address:* CC Me:
Enter your valid email address. Example: jdoe@example.com

Recipient's Email Address:*

Separate multiple email address with semi-colons (up to 5).

Subject:* 's The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery: 'Conflict of Interest in Orthopaedic Research: An Association Between Findings and Funding in Scientific Presentations'
Subject for your email.

Message:

(Optional, message will truncate at 1000 characters)

Processing your request... Please Wait...

Copyright © in the material you requested is held by The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Inc. (unless otherwise noted). This email ability is provided as a courtesy, and by using it you agree that that you are requesting the material solely for personal, non-commercial use, and that it is subject to Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Inc.'s Terms of Use. The information provided in order to email this topic will not be used to send unsolicited email, nor will it be furnished to third parties. Please refer to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery Inc.'s Privacy Policy for further information.

Copyright © The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery Inc. All rights reserved.
Share
Get Citation

Kanu Okike, Mininder S. Kocher, Charles T. Mehlman, Mohit Bhandari; Conflict of Interest in Orthopaedic ResearchAn Association Between Findings and Funding in Scientific Presentations. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. 2007 Mar;89(3):608-613.

Download citation file:

RIS (Zotero)

EndNote

BibTex

Medlars

ProCite

RefWorks

Reference Manager

Copyright © The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
Rights & Permissions
Article Alerts

Processing your request... Please Wait.
Submit a Comment