Assessment of conflicts of interest in robotic surgical studies: Validating author's declarations with the open payments database..

Background Accurate conflict of interest (COI) statements are important, as a known COI may invalidate study results due to the potential risk of bias. Objective To determine the accuracy of self-declared COI statements in robotic studies and identify risk factors for undeclared payments. Methods Robotic surgery studies were identified through EMBASE and MEDLINE and included if published in 2015 and had at least one American author. Undeclared COI were determined by comparing the author’s declared COI with industry reported payments found in the ‘‘Open Payments’’ database for 2013 and 2014. Undeclared payments and discrepancies in the COI statement were determined. Risk factors were assessed for an association with undeclared payments at the author and study level. Results A total of 458 studies (2253 authors) were included. Approximately, 240 (52%) studies had 1 or more author receive undeclared payments and included 183 where ‘‘no COI’’ was explicitly declared, and 57 with no declaration statement present. Moreover, 21% of studies and 18% of authors with a COI declared it so in a COI statement. Studies that had undeclared payments from Intuitive were more likely to recommend robotic surgery compared with those that declared funding (odds ratio 4.29, 95% confidence interval 2.55–7.21). Conclusions We found that it was common for payments from Intuitive to be undeclared in robotic surgery articles. Mechanisms for accountability in COI reporting need to be put into place by journals to achieve appropriate transparency to those reading the journal article.</p

Assessment of conflicts of interest in robotic surgical studies: Validating author's declarations with the open payments database..

Background Accurate conflict of interest (COI) statements are important, as a known COI may invalidate study results due to the potential risk of bias. Objective To determine the accuracy of self-declared COI statements in robotic studies and identify risk factors for undeclared payments. Methods Robotic surgery studies were identified through EMBASE and MEDLINE and included if published in 2015 and had at least one American author. Undeclared COI were determined by comparing the author’s declared COI with industry reported payments found in the ‘‘Open Payments’’ database for 2013 and 2014. Undeclared payments and discrepancies in the COI statement were determined. Risk factors were assessed for an association with undeclared payments at the author and study level. Results A total of 458 studies (2253 authors) were included. Approximately, 240 (52%) studies had 1 or more author receive undeclared payments and included 183 where ‘‘no COI’’ was explicitly declared, and 57 with no declaration statement present. Moreover, 21% of studies and 18% of authors with a COI declared it so in a COI statement. Studies that had undeclared payments from Intuitive were more likely to recommend robotic surgery compared with those that declared funding (odds ratio 4.29, 95% confidence interval 2.55–7.21). Conclusions We found that it was common for payments from Intuitive to be undeclared in robotic surgery articles. Mechanisms for accountability in COI reporting need to be put into place by journals to achieve appropriate transparency to those reading the journal article.</p

BJS commission on surgery and perioperative care post-COVID-19

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the WHO on 11 March 2020 and global surgical practice was compromised. This Commission aimed to document and reflect on the changes seen in the surgical environment during the pandemic, by reviewing colleagues experiences and published evidence. Methods: In late 2020, BJS contacted colleagues across the global surgical community and asked them to describe how severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) had affected their practice. In addition to this, the Commission undertook a literature review on the impact of COVID-19 on surgery and perioperative care. A thematic analysis was performed to identify the issues most frequently encountered by the correspondents, as well as the solutions and ideas suggested to address them. Results: BJS received communications for this Commission from leading clinicians and academics across a variety of surgical specialties in every inhabited continent. The responses from all over the world provided insights into multiple facets of surgical practice from a governmental level to individual clinical practice and training. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has uncovered a variety of problems in healthcare systems, including negative impacts on surgical practice. Global surgical multidisciplinary teams are working collaboratively to address research questions about the future of surgery in the post-COVID-19 era. The COVID-19 pandemic is severely damaging surgical training. The establishment of a multidisciplinary ethics committee should be encouraged at all surgical oncology centres. Innovative leadership and collaboration is vital in the post-COVID-19 era

BJS commission on surgery and perioperative care post-COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the WHO on 11 March 2020 and global surgical practice was compromised. This Commission aimed to document and reflect on the changes seen in the surgical environment during the pandemic, by reviewing colleagues' experiences and published evidence