Search

Aims: Industry collaboration with arrhythmia and devices research is common. However, this results in conflicts of interest (CoI) for researchers that should be disclosed. This study aimed to examine the quality of CoI disclosures in arrhythmia and devices presentations.Methods: Recorded presentations from the Arrhythmia & Devices section of the ESC Annual Congress 2016-2020 were assessed. The number of words, conflicts, and time displayed was documented for CoI declarations. Meta-data including sponsorship by an industry partner, presenter sex, and institution were obtained.Results: Of 1153 presentations assessed, 999 were suitable for inclusion. CoI statements were missing from 7.2% of presentations, and 58% reported ≥1 conflict. Those with conflicts spent less time-per-word on their disclosures (median 150 ms, interquartile range [IQR] 83-273 ms) compared with those without conflicts (median 250 ms, IQR 125-375 ms). One-in-eight presentations were sponsored (12.8%, n = 128). CoI statements were more likely to be missing in sponsored presentations (14.8%, n = 19) compared with non-sponsored presentations (6.1%, n = 53), P = 0.0003. Sponsored presentations contained a greater median number of CoIs (10, IQR 6-18) compared with non-sponsored sessions (1, IQR 0-5), P < 0.0001. Time-per-word spent on COI disclosures was 50% lower in sponsored sessions (125 ms, IQR 75-231 ms) compared with non-sponsored sessions (250 ms, IQR 125-375 ms), P < 0.0001.Conclusion: The majority of those presenting arrhythmia and devices research have CoIs to declare. Declarations were often missing or displayed for short periods of time. Presenters in sponsored sessions, while being more conflicted, had a lower standard of declaration suggesting a higher risk of potential bias which viewers had insufficient opportunity to assess. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Industry collaboration with arrhythmia and devices research is common. However, this results in conflicts of interest (CoI) for researchers that should be disclosed. This study aimed to examine the quality of CoI disclosures in arrhythmia and devices presentations., Methods: Recorded presentations from the Arrhythmia & Devices section of the ESC Annual Congress 2016-2020 were assessed. The number of words, conflicts, and time displayed was documented for CoI declarations. Meta-data including sponsorship by an industry partner, presenter sex, and institution were obtained., Results: Of 1153 presentations assessed, 999 were suitable for inclusion. CoI statements were missing from 7.2% of presentations, and 58% reported ≥1 conflict. Those with conflicts spent less time-per-word on their disclosures (median 150 ms, interquartile range [IQR] 83-273 ms) compared with those without conflicts (median 250 ms, IQR 125-375 ms). One-in-eight presentations were sponsored (12.8%, n = 128). CoI statements were more likely to be missing in sponsored presentations (14.8%, n = 19) compared with non-sponsored presentations (6.1%, n = 53), P = 0.0003. Sponsored presentations contained a greater median number of CoIs (10, IQR 6-18) compared with non-sponsored sessions (1, IQR 0-5), P < 0.0001. Time-per-word spent on COI disclosures was 50% lower in sponsored sessions (125 ms, IQR 75-231 ms) compared with non-sponsored sessions (250 ms, IQR 125-375 ms), P < 0.0001., Conclusion: The majority of those presenting arrhythmia and devices research have CoIs to declare. Declarations were often missing or displayed for short periods of time. Presenters in sponsored sessions, while being more conflicted, had a lower standard of declaration suggesting a higher risk of potential bias which viewers had insufficient opportunity to assess., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest in relation to this work., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: The majority of neck of femur (NOF) fractures are treated operatively in the United Kingdom. The literature reports the advantages of operative management for these patients. However, whilst a subset is treated non-operatively, there is currently no clear guidance for the selection and subsequent management of these patients. This study aims to explore the incidence, demographics, inpatient stay, use of imaging and outcomes of patients who have non-operatively managed NOF fractures., Methods: A 6-year retrospective review (2013-2019) of all non-operatively managed NOF fractures at a tertiary teaching hospital and major trauma centre was conducted. Electronic patient records, radiographs and National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) data were used to obtain information. We noted demographic details, fracture classification, rationale for non-operative management, mortality, clinical frailty score (CFS), use of imaging and analgesia requirements. Patients who were repatriated or transferred to other sites for specialist surgery were excluded., Results: 3.2% (99/3132) of NOF fractures were managed non-operatively. The two commonest reasons for non-operative management were either 'comfortable mobilisation' (n = 44) or 'patient frailty/medically unwell' (n = 50). 74% (37/50) of the patients in whom operative risk was thought to outweigh benefit died within the 30 days of admission and 1-year mortality for this group was 92% (46/50). Of the "comfortable mobilisation" subgroup only 18% (8/44) of this patient subgroup subsequently required surgical intervention for failed non-operative management. The 30-day mortality for this cohort was 6.8% with a 1-year mortality rate of 25% (11/44)., Conclusion: For a select group of patients whose fractures are stable enough to allow them to mobilise comfortably, non-operative management resulted in a 25% 1-year mortality rate and average length of stay of 10.1 days. This is comparable to statistics for overall NOF fracture management in the literature according to the NHFD January 2021 report. 82% of this group of patients were successfully managed without an operation indicating that there is a place for the consideration of non-operative management in a small select subgroup of hip fracture patients with minimally displaced, stable fractures. Further analysis is necessary to assess the functional outcomes of this subgroup, as well as the potential cost implications., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Potential conflicts of interest (CoI) are common in medical research, necessitating the use of CoI declarations. There is currently no consensus document or external authority guiding CoI declarations in conference settings, resulting in declarations of variable quality and utility., Methods: We explored four CoI declaration parameters (sufficient slide display time; the presence of any verbal explanation pertaining to relevant CoI; the use of an adequate font size; and whether the nature and relevance of the CoI was described). Parameters were graded from one to three points, with the sum of parameters providing an overall declaration quality out of 12. We then applied this scoring system to recordings of presentations from the British Cardiovascular Society (BCS) annual conference 2018 which were available online., Results: Sixty-nine presentations were suitable for inclusion, of which 47 (68%) contained a CoI statement. Thirty-six of the 47 (77%) presentations declared that they had no CoI. In the remaining 11 (23%) with reported CoI, the median time spent displaying CoI was 1 second (interquartile range (IQR) 0.7-3.3). The median quality score for presentations was 7 (IQR 6-10)., Conclusion: This study demonstrates utility in considering aspects of CoI declarations at conferences to improve transparency., (© Royal College of Physicians 2020. All rights reserved.)