Search

Objectives: Advances in vascular surgery are increasingly technology-driven, and the relationships between surgeons and the medical device industry can be complex. This study reviewed conflict of interest (COI) disclosure in the vascular surgery journals regarding several selected technology-driven topics, including endovascular stent grafts (EV), carotid artery stenting (CAS), and peripheral arterial interventions (PI), to suggest further directions., Methods: Authors' COI disclosures were reviewed from all clinical papers published in 2008 and 2009 in each of six vascular surgery journals, and pertaining to three selected topics (EV, CAS, and PI). Rate of COI disclosure was evaluated as a function of journal, topic, article type (randomized trial, case series, case report, review, or meta-analysis), and authors' region of origin. Secondarily, consistency of authors' disclosure was evaluated by reviewing papers by the same author and of the same topic., Results: Six hundred thirty-five papers were reviewed from the six journals. A COI was declared in 125 (19.7%) of these papers. This rate differed between journals (range, 3.2%-34.1%; P < .0001). Rate of disclosure did not differ between topics (range, 12.8%-21.2%; P = .12), article type (range, 14.7%-30%; P = .28), or region of origin (range, 0%-33.3%; P = .09). There were 116 instances of the same author writing papers describing the same general topic. COI disclosure was consistent in the majority of these instances (72.4%), but inconsistent in 32 cases (27.6%). The most common (P = .006) inconsistencies involved the same type of article in different journals (46.9%), or in the same journal (25%)., Conclusions: Rates of disclosure of COI, and inconsistencies in disclosure in the vascular surgery literature are at least partially due to differences in journals' reporting policies, while a smaller proportion of these inconsistencies are due to individual author behavior. Journals should adopt a consistent requirement for a separate COI declaration where all relevant financial arrangements are disclosed., (Copyright © 2011 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competition of interest may exist at all levels in the medical publication process. Ensuring the integrity of scientific scholarship involves protecting editorial independence, promoting the use of scientific arbitration boards, promoting transparency throughout all stages of publication, and protecting the relationship between the publisher and its editors through an effective legal framework. It is incumbent upon the publisher, editors, authors, and readers to ensure that the highest standards of scientific scholarship are upheld. Doing so will help reduce fraud and misrepresentation in medical research and increase the trustworthiness of landmark findings in science., (Copyright © 2011 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Publication of clinical trial data is the final step in the scientific method and an important method by which pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, i.e., drug sponsors, disseminate information about their products. Because of the nature of large, multicenter trials, multiple investigators from many institutions may be considered as authors of these papers. Controversy concerning the rights of academic institutions and the rights of drug sponsors has been widely debated. This chapter summarizes the controversy and the current policies.