Failure to discount for conflict of interest when evaluating medical literature: a randomised trial of physicians

Journal of Medical Ethics 36 (5):265-270 (2010)

Abstract
Context Physicians are regularly confronted with research that is funded or presented by industry. Objective To assess whether physicians discount for conflicts of interest when weighing evidence for prescribing a new drug. Design and setting Participants were presented with an abstract from a single clinical trial finding positive results for a fictitious new drug. Physicians were randomly assigned one version of a hypothetical scenario, which varied on conflict of interest: ‘presenter conflict’, ‘researcher conflict’ and ‘no conflict’. Participants 515 randomly selected Fellows in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Collaborative Ambulatory Research Network; 253 surveys (49%) were returned. Main object measures The self-reported likelihood that physicians would prescribe the new drug as a first-line therapy. Results Physicians do not significantly discount for conflicts of interest in their self-reported likelihood of prescribing the new drug after reading the single abstract and scenario. However, when asked explicitly to compare conflict and no conflict, 69% report that they would discount for researcher conflict and 57% report that they would discount for presenter conflict. When asked to guess how favourable the results of this study were towards the new drug, compared with the other trials published so far, their perceptions were not significantly influenced by conflict of interest information. Conclusion While physicians believe that they should discount the value of information from conflicted sources, they did not do so in the absence of a direct comparison between two studies. This brings into question the effectiveness of merely disclosing the funding sources of published studies
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1136/jme.2009.034496
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 40,031
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Why Heuristics Work.Gerd Gigerenzer - 2008 - Perspectives on Psychological Science 3 (1):20-29.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Pharmaceutical “Gift-Giving,” Medical Education, and Conflict of Interest.Dale Murray & Heather Certain - 2007 - Journal of Philosophical Research 32 (Supplement):335-343.
Conflict of Interest and Medical Publication.Marcus M. Reidenberg - 2002 - Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (3):455-457.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-09-13

Total views
22 ( #364,321 of 2,236,238 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #765,248 of 2,236,238 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature