TY - JOUR
T1 - Editorial conflicts of interest related to the management of stable ischemic heart disease
AU - Ferrell, Matthew
AU - Garrett, Elizabeth Payton
AU - Tomlin, Alicia
AU - Wayant, Cole
AU - Vassar, Matt
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2022/9/1
Y1 - 2022/9/1
N2 - Objective: Our study examines the association between the favorability of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and/or coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and the presence of conflicts of interest (COIs) among authors. Methods: We used the “Citing Articles” tool on the New England Journal of Medicine website to identify editorials on the use of PCI/CABG for stable ischemic heart disease. Authors were rated as “supportive,” “neutral,” or “critical” of these interventions based on the content of their editorials. COIs for each author were identified using past publications found on Scopus, PubMed, or a general internet search. Results: A total of 606 articles were identified, and data were extracted from 56 of them. Among the 149 authors, 64 (43.0%) had a COI. Of these 64 authors, 19 (29.7%) disclosed their COI, while 45 (70.3%) did not. Overall, among authors with a COI, there was no association between disclosed and undisclosed COIs and the authors' view of PCI/CABG [χ2 (2, N = 64) = 1.63, p = .44]. If an author was associated with Medtronic, Abbott, or Boston Scientific, they were more likely to favor PCI/CABG if they had an undisclosed COI relative to authors who disclosed COIs [χ2 (1, N = 31) = 5.04, p = .025]. Authors publishing in a cardiology journal were more likely to view PCI/CABG favorably relative to those publishing in a general medicine journal [χ2 (2, N = 62) = 7.17, p = .028]. Conclusion: Editors should adopt policies to counteract the unbalancing effects that COIs have on medical opinions and evidence.
AB - Objective: Our study examines the association between the favorability of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and/or coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and the presence of conflicts of interest (COIs) among authors. Methods: We used the “Citing Articles” tool on the New England Journal of Medicine website to identify editorials on the use of PCI/CABG for stable ischemic heart disease. Authors were rated as “supportive,” “neutral,” or “critical” of these interventions based on the content of their editorials. COIs for each author were identified using past publications found on Scopus, PubMed, or a general internet search. Results: A total of 606 articles were identified, and data were extracted from 56 of them. Among the 149 authors, 64 (43.0%) had a COI. Of these 64 authors, 19 (29.7%) disclosed their COI, while 45 (70.3%) did not. Overall, among authors with a COI, there was no association between disclosed and undisclosed COIs and the authors' view of PCI/CABG [χ2 (2, N = 64) = 1.63, p = .44]. If an author was associated with Medtronic, Abbott, or Boston Scientific, they were more likely to favor PCI/CABG if they had an undisclosed COI relative to authors who disclosed COIs [χ2 (1, N = 31) = 5.04, p = .025]. Authors publishing in a cardiology journal were more likely to view PCI/CABG favorably relative to those publishing in a general medicine journal [χ2 (2, N = 62) = 7.17, p = .028]. Conclusion: Editors should adopt policies to counteract the unbalancing effects that COIs have on medical opinions and evidence.
KW - Cardiology
KW - Conflicts of interest
KW - Editorials
KW - Ischemic heart disease
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85130349343&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167527322005691
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijcard.2022.04.053
DO - 10.1016/j.ijcard.2022.04.053
M3 - Article
C2 - 35469940
AN - SCOPUS:85130349343
SN - 0167-5273
VL - 362
SP - 1
EP - 5
JO - International Journal of Cardiology
JF - International Journal of Cardiology
ER -