Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Lisa Cosgrove, S. Krimsky, Emily Wheeler, J. Kaitz, Scott Greenspan, Nicole DiPentima (2014)
Tripartite Conflicts of Interest and High Stakes Patent Extensions in the DSM-5Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 83
S. Chimonas, Frederica Stahl, D. Rothman (2012)
Exposing conflict of interest in psychiatry: does transparency matter?International journal of law and psychiatry, 35 5-6
K. Weinfurt, M. Hall, N. Hardy, Joëlle Friedman, K. Schulman, J. Sugarman (2010)
Oversight of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Commercially Sponsored Research in Academic and Nonacademic SettingsJournal of General Internal Medicine, 25
E. Campbell, Sowmya Rao, C. DesRoches, L. Iezzoni, C. Vogeli, Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic, Paola Miralles (2010)
Physician professionalism and changes in physician-industry relationships from 2004 to 2009.Archives of internal medicine, 170 20
EG Campbell, JS Weissman, S Ehringhaus (2007)
Institutional academic industry relationships: results of a national survey of department chairs., 298
B. Lo, M. Field (2009)
Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice
J. Drazen, G. Koski (2000)
To protect those who serve.The New England journal of medicine, 343 22
Derek Dalton, Marc Ortegren (2011)
Gender Differences in Ethics Research: The Importance of Controlling for the Social Desirability Response BiasJournal of Business Ethics, 103
M. Roseman, E. Turner, J. Lexchin, J. Coyne, L. Bero, B. Thombs (2012)
Reporting of conflicts of interest from drug trials in Cochrane reviews: cross sectional studyThe BMJ, 345
E. Campbell, J. Weissman, S. Ehringhaus, Sowmya Rao, B. Moy, Sandra Feibelmann, S. Goold (2007)
Institutional academic industry relationships.JAMA, 298 15
A. Kesselheim, C. Robertson, K. Siri, P. Batra, J. Franklin (2013)
Distributions of industry payments to Massachusetts physicians.The New England journal of medicine, 368 22
Andreas Lundh, S. Sismondo, J. Lexchin, O. Busuioc, L. Bero (2012)
Industry sponsorship and research outcome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 12
C. Robertson, Susannah Rose, A. Kesselheim (2012)
Effect of Financial Relationships on the Behaviors of Health Care Professionals: A Review of the EvidenceThe Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 40
Kirsten Austad, J. Avorn, J. Franklin, Mary Kowal, E. Campbell, A. Kesselheim (2013)
Changing Interactions Between Physician Trainees and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A National SurveyJournal of General Internal Medicine, 28
A. Kesselheim, C. Robertson, J. Myers, Susannah Rose, V. Gillet, K. Ross, R. Glynn, S. Joffe, J. Avorn (2012)
A randomized study of how physicians interpret research funding disclosures.The New England journal of medicine, 367 12
E. Campbell, J. Weissman, C. Vogeli, B. Clarridge, Melissa Abraham, Jessica Marder, G. Koski (2006)
Financial relationships between institutional review board members and industry.The New England journal of medicine, 355 22
R. Schwartz, G. Curfman, S. Morrissey, J. Drazen (2008)
Full disclosure and the funding of biomedical research.The New England journal of medicine, 358 17
D. Zinner, Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic, B. Clarridge, D. Blumenthal, E. Campbell (2009)
Participation of academic scientists in relationships with industry.Health affairs, 28 6
M. Angell (2000)
Is academic medicine for sale?The New England journal of medicine, 342 20
S. Chimonas, S. Evarts, Sarah Littlehale, D. Rothman (2013)
Managing Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Care: The “Race to the Middle” at U.S. Medical SchoolsAcademic Medicine, 88
E. Korn, B. Graubard (1999)
Analysis of Health Surveys: Korn/Analysis
M. Wadman (2013)
Science agencies prepare for cutsNature, 494
C. Vogeli, G. Koski, E. Campbell (2009)
Policies and Management of Conflicts of Interest Within Medical Research Institutional Review Boards: Results of a National StudyAcademic Medicine, 84
Arshya Vahabzadeh, D. M., J. Wittenauer, W. McDonald (2013)
Disclosure of Competing InterestsAcademic Psychiatry, 37
ImportanceFor the past decade, more attention and concern has been directed toward financial relationships between the life science industry and physicians. Relationships between industry and institutional review board (IRB) members represent an important subclass that has the potential to broadly influence decisions regarding medical research. ObjectivesTo study the nature, extent, and perceived consequences of industry relationships among IRB members in academic health centers and to compare our results with findings from 2005. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA survey mailed to IRB members from the 115 most research-intensive medical schools and teaching hospitals in the United States from January 16 through May 16, 2014. The survey included questions identical to those used in 2005. Data analysis was conducted from June through October 2014. Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe frequency of industry relationships among IRB members and the perceived effect of those relationships on IRB-related activities. ResultsWe found no significant change in the percentage of IRB members with an industry relationship from 2005 through 2014 (2005: 37.2%; 95% CI, 32.7%-42.0%; 2014: 32.1%; 95% CI, 28.0%-36.4%; P = .09). However, since 2005, the percentage of members who felt another member did not properly disclose a financial relationship decreased from 10.8% (95% CI, 8.0%-14.4%) to 6.7% (95% CI, 4.7%-9.4%) (P = .04), as did the percentage who felt pressure from their institution or department to approve a protocol (2005: 18.6%; 95% CI, 15.0%-22.9%; 2014: 10.0%; 95% CI, 7.6%-13.0%; P < .001). The percentage of members with a conflict of interest who voted on protocols with which they have a conflict has not changed, although the percentage who said they always disclose relationships increased significantly from 54.9% in 2005 (95% CI, 42.2%-66.9%) to 80.0% in 2014 (95% CI, 65.3%-89.4%) (P = .01). We also found evidence of anti-industry bias in the presentation of protocols to the IRB. Conclusions and RelevanceThe results show significant positive progress in the reporting and management of conflicts of interest among IRB members in academic health centers since 2005 after adjusting for other factors. Additional attention should be focused on deterring IRB members from inappropriately voting on or presenting protocols in a biased manner.
JAMA Internal Medicine – American Medical Association
Published: Sep 1, 2015
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.