Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1735260
Conflict of Interest at Microsurgery Conferences: Disclosure of Its Extent and Nature
Abstract
Background Industry relationships and conflicts of interest can impact research funding, topics, and outcomes. Little research regarding the role of biomedical companies at microsurgery conferences is available. This study evaluates the role of industry at conferences by comparing payments received by speakers at the American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgeons (ASRM) meeting with those received by speakers at the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (ASAPS) meeting, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) meeting, and an average plastic surgeon. It also compares payments made by different companies.
Methods General payments received by speakers at the 2017 ASAPS, ASPS, and ASRM conferences were collected from the Open Payments Database. Mean payments received at each conference were calculated and the Mann–Whitney U test evaluated differences between conference speakers and the average plastic surgeon. The total amount of payments from each company was collected through the Open Payments Database, and Z-tests identified which companies paid significantly more than others.
Results The mean (and median) general payments made to conference speakers at ASAPS (n = 75), ASPS (n = 247), and ASRM (n = 121) were $75,577 ($861), $27,562 ($1,021), and $16,725 ($652), respectively. These payments were significantly greater (p < 0.001 for all) than those of the average plastic surgeon ($4,441 and $327), but not significantly different from each other. Allergan contributed significantly more than other companies to speakers at ASPS and ASAPS, while LifeCell Corporation, Zimmer Biomet Holdings, and Axogen contributed significantly more to speakers at ASRM.
Conclusion Payments to physicians at ASRM were significantly higher than those of an average plastic surgeon but not significantly different from those of speakers at ASAPS and ASPS. Certain companies paid significantly more than their peers at each conference. Given these findings, speakers should strive to make clear the nature and extent of their conflicts of interest when presenting at conferences.
Prior Presentation
Northeastern Society of Plastic Surgeons (NESPS) 2018 and American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery (ASRM) 2019.
Publication History
Received: 29 April 2021
Accepted: 22 June 2021
Article published online:
09 September 2021
© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA
-
References
- 1 Chao AH, Gangopadhyay N. Industry financial relationships in plastic surgery: analysis of the Sunshine Act Open Payments Database. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 138 (02) 341e-348e
- 2 Lopez J, Prifogle E, Nyame TT, Milton J, May Jr JW. The impact of conflicts of interest in plastic surgery: an analysis of acellular dermal matrix, implant-based breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 133 (06) 1328-1334
- 3 Kairinos N, Pillay K, Solomons M, Hudson DA, Kahn D. The influence manufacturers have on negative-pressure wound therapy research. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 133 (05) 1178-1183
- 4 DeGeorge Jr BR, Holland MC, Drake DB. The impact of conflict of interest in abdominal wall reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix. Ann Plast Surg 2015; 74 (02) 242-247
- 5 Momeni A, Becker A, Bannasch H, Antes G, Blümle A, Stark GB. Association between research sponsorship and study outcome in plastic surgery literature. Ann Plast Surg 2009; 63 (06) 661-664
- 6 Gray R, Tanna N, Kasabian AK. Conflict of interest at plastic surgery conferences: is it significant?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2019; 144 (02) 308e-313e
- 7 Ruan QZ, Cohen JB, Baek Y. et al. Does industry funding mean more publications for subspecialty academic plastic surgeons?. J Surg Res 2018; 224: 185-192
- 8 Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005; 102 (46) 16569-16572
- 9 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service. The Open Payments Database. Accessed July 23, 2021 from [https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov]
- 10 2018. Surgeon-Plastic Reconstructive Salaries. Accessed July 23, 2021 from [https://www1.salary.com/Surgeon-Plastic-Reconstructive-salary.html]
- 11 2017 Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. ASPS National Clearinghouse of Plastic Surgery Procedural Statistics. Accessed July 23, 2021 from [https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2017/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2017.pdf.]
- 12 Bailey CS, Fehlings MG, Rampersaud YR, Hall H, Wai EK, Fisher CG. Industry and evidence-based medicine: believable or conflicted? A systematic review of the surgical literature. Can J Surg 2011; 54 (05) 321-326
- 13 Carragee EJ, Ghanayem AJ, Weiner BK, Rothman DJ, Bono CM. A challenge to integrity in spine publications: years of living dangerously with the promotion of bone growth factors. Spine J 2011; 11 (06) 463-468
- 14 Spielmans GI, Parry PI. From evidence-based medicine to marketing-based medicine: evidence from internal industry documents. J Bioeth Inq 2010; 7 (01) 13-29
- 15 Ramm O, Brubaker L. Conflicts-of-interest disclosures at the 2010 AUGS Scientific Meeting. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2012; 18 (02) 79-81
- 16 Choo KJ, Yi PH, Burns R, Mohan R, Wong K. Variable reporting by authors presenting arthroplasty research at multiple annual conferences. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (01) 315-319
- 17 Wong K, Yi PH, Mohan R, Choo KJ. Variability in conflict of interest disclosures by physicians presenting trauma research. World J Orthop 2017; 8 (04) 329-335