Cargando…
3510 Academic influence in gynecologic oncology is associated with industry funding: an analysis of the Open Payments database
OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Industry payments to physicians can present a conflict of interest. The Physician Payments Sunshine Act mandates the disclosure of these financial relationships to increase transparency. Recent studies in other surgical specialties have shown that research productivity is a...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Cambridge University Press
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6798899/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2019.77 |
_version_ | 1783460159317606400 |
---|---|
author | Samuel, David Adler, Shelby Vilardo, Nicole Gressel, Gregory |
author_facet | Samuel, David Adler, Shelby Vilardo, Nicole Gressel, Gregory |
author_sort | Samuel, David |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Industry payments to physicians can present a conflict of interest. The Physician Payments Sunshine Act mandates the disclosure of these financial relationships to increase transparency. Recent studies in other surgical specialties have shown that research productivity is associated with greater industry funding. In this study, we characterize the relationship between academic influence and industry funding among academic gynecologic oncologists. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Departmental websites were used to identify academic gynecologist oncologists and their demographic information. The Hirsch index (h-index) relates an author’s number of publications to number of times referenced by other publications, a validated measure of an author’s academic influence. This was obtained from the Scopus database. The Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services Open Payments online database was searched for all industry payments in 2017. The NIH Reporter online database was searched for active grants. Goodness of fit testing showed that all variables followed nonparametric distributions. Medians were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests and Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance with post-hoc Dunn’s test. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Four hundred and sixty-six academic gynecologic oncologists were included in the analysis. In 2017, 89.7% of this group received industry funding totaling $41.4 million. Median industry funding was $453 [IQR $67-19684] and median h-index was 14 [IQR 8-26]. Only 8.1% of gynecologic oncologists were NIH grant recipients and they received significantly higher industry payments ($357 vs. 11,168, P<0.01). Gender and academic rank were not associated with industry funding. Gynecologic oncologists in the highest decile of industry funding received a median payment of $447,651[N=46, IQR $285,770 – 896,310] totaling $36.5 million. The median h-index for this top-earning decile was 23 [N=46, IQR 16.5-30.3]. When stratified by payment amount, median h index increased but only reached statistical significance in the highest cohort receiving >$100,000 (N = 63, P<0.05). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The majority of academic gynecologic oncologists receive industry funding although there are large variations in payments. Those receiving the largest payments are more likely to hold NIH grants and have greater academic influence. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6798899 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Cambridge University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67988992019-10-28 3510 Academic influence in gynecologic oncology is associated with industry funding: an analysis of the Open Payments database Samuel, David Adler, Shelby Vilardo, Nicole Gressel, Gregory J Clin Transl Sci Clinical Epidemiology/Clinical Trial OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Industry payments to physicians can present a conflict of interest. The Physician Payments Sunshine Act mandates the disclosure of these financial relationships to increase transparency. Recent studies in other surgical specialties have shown that research productivity is associated with greater industry funding. In this study, we characterize the relationship between academic influence and industry funding among academic gynecologic oncologists. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Departmental websites were used to identify academic gynecologist oncologists and their demographic information. The Hirsch index (h-index) relates an author’s number of publications to number of times referenced by other publications, a validated measure of an author’s academic influence. This was obtained from the Scopus database. The Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services Open Payments online database was searched for all industry payments in 2017. The NIH Reporter online database was searched for active grants. Goodness of fit testing showed that all variables followed nonparametric distributions. Medians were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests and Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance with post-hoc Dunn’s test. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Four hundred and sixty-six academic gynecologic oncologists were included in the analysis. In 2017, 89.7% of this group received industry funding totaling $41.4 million. Median industry funding was $453 [IQR $67-19684] and median h-index was 14 [IQR 8-26]. Only 8.1% of gynecologic oncologists were NIH grant recipients and they received significantly higher industry payments ($357 vs. 11,168, P<0.01). Gender and academic rank were not associated with industry funding. Gynecologic oncologists in the highest decile of industry funding received a median payment of $447,651[N=46, IQR $285,770 – 896,310] totaling $36.5 million. The median h-index for this top-earning decile was 23 [N=46, IQR 16.5-30.3]. When stratified by payment amount, median h index increased but only reached statistical significance in the highest cohort receiving >$100,000 (N = 63, P<0.05). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The majority of academic gynecologic oncologists receive industry funding although there are large variations in payments. Those receiving the largest payments are more likely to hold NIH grants and have greater academic influence. Cambridge University Press 2019-03-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6798899/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2019.77 Text en © The Association for Clinical and Translational Science 2019 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-ncnd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work. |
spellingShingle | Clinical Epidemiology/Clinical Trial Samuel, David Adler, Shelby Vilardo, Nicole Gressel, Gregory 3510 Academic influence in gynecologic oncology is associated with industry funding: an analysis of the Open Payments database |
title | 3510 Academic influence in gynecologic oncology is associated with industry funding: an analysis of the Open Payments database |
title_full | 3510 Academic influence in gynecologic oncology is associated with industry funding: an analysis of the Open Payments database |
title_fullStr | 3510 Academic influence in gynecologic oncology is associated with industry funding: an analysis of the Open Payments database |
title_full_unstemmed | 3510 Academic influence in gynecologic oncology is associated with industry funding: an analysis of the Open Payments database |
title_short | 3510 Academic influence in gynecologic oncology is associated with industry funding: an analysis of the Open Payments database |
title_sort | 3510 academic influence in gynecologic oncology is associated with industry funding: an analysis of the open payments database |
topic | Clinical Epidemiology/Clinical Trial |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6798899/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2019.77 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT samueldavid 3510academicinfluenceingynecologiconcologyisassociatedwithindustryfundingananalysisoftheopenpaymentsdatabase AT adlershelby 3510academicinfluenceingynecologiconcologyisassociatedwithindustryfundingananalysisoftheopenpaymentsdatabase AT vilardonicole 3510academicinfluenceingynecologiconcologyisassociatedwithindustryfundingananalysisoftheopenpaymentsdatabase AT gresselgregory 3510academicinfluenceingynecologiconcologyisassociatedwithindustryfundingananalysisoftheopenpaymentsdatabase |