A Comparison of DSM-IV and DSM-5 Panel Members' Financial Associations with Industry: A Pernicious Problem Persists

Lisa Cosgrove and Sheldon Krimsky examine the new competing interest disclosure policy of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and report that DSM panel members still have considerable financial conflicts of interest

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 4. Managing conflicts of interests

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the fourth of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed the literature on conflicts of interest to answer the following questions: 1. What is the best way to obtain complete and accurate disclosures on financial ties and other competing interests? 2. How to determine when a disclosed financial tie or other competing interest constitutes a conflict of interest? 3. When a conflict of interest is identified, how should the conflict be managed? 4. How could conflict of interest policies be enforced? METHODS: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Methodology Register and selectively searched for the published policies of several organizations, We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments. KEY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: What is the best way to obtain complete and accurate disclosures on financial ties and other competing interests? • Although there is little empirical evidence to guide the development of disclosure forms, minimal or open-ended formats are likely to be uninformative. We recommend the development of specific, detailed, structured forms that solicit as much information as possible about the nature and extent of the competing interests. How to determine when a disclosed financial tie or other competing interest constitutes a conflict of interest? • There is no empirical evidence to suggest that explicit criteria are preferable to ad hoc committee decisions when deciding if a disclosed financial tie is a conflict of interest. However, explicit criteria may make decision-making easier. When a conflict of interest is identified, how should the conflict be managed? • Descriptive studies suggest that appropriate management strategies are best determined on a case-by-case basis. Thus, WHO should use a wide range of management strategies to address disclosed conflicts of interest, with public disclosure of conflicts associated with each meeting as a minimum and recusal of conflicted individuals as the other extreme. How could conflict of interest policies be enforced? • Although there are no empirical studies of the enforcement of conflict if interest policies, descriptive studies of other organizations and institutions suggest that WHO convene a standing committee to review all financial disclosure statements prior to the commencement of committee meetings/hearings and to make management recommendations when necessary. A standard policy requiring all financial ties to be made public (i.e., recorded into the meeting minutes) should reduce the number of problematic cases. In instances where the conflicts seem intractable, a recommendation of recusal may be necessary to protect the greater interests of WHO and its constituents

Fiducial marker placement with electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy: a subgroup analysis of the prospective, multicenter NAVIGATE study

Fiducial markers (FMs) help direct stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and localization for surgical resection in lung cancer management. We report the safety, accuracy, and practice patterns of FM placement utilizing electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (ENB). Methods: NAVIGATE is a global, prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study of ENB using the superDimension™ navigation system. This prospectively collected subgroup analysis presents the patient demographics, procedural characteristics, and 1-month outcomes in patients undergoing ENB-guided FM placement. Follow up through 24 months is ongoing. Results: Two-hundred fifty-eight patients from 21 centers in the United States were included. General anesthesia was used in 68.2%. Lesion location was confirmed by radial endobronchial ultrasound in 34.5% of procedures. The median ENB procedure time was 31.0 min. Concurrent lung lesion biopsy was conducted in 82.6% (213/258) of patients. A mean of 2.2 ± 1.7 FMs (median 1.0 FMs) were placed per patient and 99.2% were accurately positioned based on subjective operator assessment. Follow-up imaging showed that 94.1% (239/254) of markers remained in place. The procedure-related pneumothorax rate was 5.4% (14/258) overall and 3.1% (8/258) grade ⩾ 2 based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events scale. The procedure-related grade ⩾ 4 respiratory failure rate was 1.6% (4/258). There were no bronchopulmonary hemorrhages. Conclusion: ENB is an accurate and versatile tool to place FMs for SBRT and localization for surgical resection with low complication rates. The ability to perform a biopsy safely in the same procedure can also increase efficiency. The impact of practice pattern variations on therapeutic effectiveness requires further study

Representation and Re-Presentation in Litigation Science

Federal appellate courts have devised several criteria to help judges distinguish between reliable and unreliable scientific evidence. The best known are the U.S. Supreme Court’s criteria offered in 1993 in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. This article focuses on another criterion, offered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, that instructs judges to assign lower credibility to “litigation science” than to science generated before litigation. In this article I argue that the criterion-based approach to judicial screening of scientific evidence is deeply flawed. That approach buys into the faulty premise that there are external criteria, lying outside the legal process, by which judges can distinguish between good and bad science. It erroneously assumes that judges can ascertain the appropriate criteria and objectively apply them to challenged evidence before litigation unfolds, and before methodological disputes are sorted out during that process. Judicial screening does not take into account the dynamics of litigation itself, including gaming by the parties and framing by judges, as constitutive factors in the production and representation of knowledge. What is admitted through judicial screening, in other words, is not precisely what a jury would see anyway. Courts are sites of repeated re-representations of scientific knowledge. In sum, the screening approach fails to take account of the wealth of existing scholarship on the production and validation of scientific facts. An unreflective application of that approach thus puts courts at risk of relying upon a “junk science” of the nature of scientific knowledge

Successful treatment of tracheal stenosis by rigid bronchoscopy and topical mitomycin C: a case report

Tracheal stenosis is a known complication of prolonged intubation. It is difficult to treat and traditional surgical approach is associated with significant risk and complications. Recurrent stenosis due to granulation tissue necessitates repeated procedures. We describe a case of short web-like tracheal stenosis (concentric membranous stenosis less than 1 cm in length without associated cartilage damage) managed by a minimally invasive thoracic endoscopic approach. Topical application of Mitomycin C, a potent fibroblast inhibitor reduces granulation tissue formation and prevents recurrence

Conflict of Interest Policies at Canadian Universities: Clarity and Content

[À l'origine dans / Was originally part of : ESPUM - Dép. médecine sociale et préventive - Travaux et publications]Abstract Discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in the university have tended to focus on financial interests in the context of medical research; much less attention has been given to COI in general or to the policies that seek to manage COI. Are university COI policies accessible and understandable? To whom are these policies addressed (faculty, staff, students)? Is COI clearly defined in these policies and are procedures laid out for avoiding or remedying such situations? To begin tackling these important ethical and governance questions, our study examines the COI policies at the Group of Thirteen (G13) leading Canadian research universities. Using automated readability analysis tools and an ethical content analysis, we begin the task of comparing the strengths and weaknesses of these documents, paying particular attention to their clarity, readability, and utility in explaining and managing COI.This study was supported by a grant from the Institute of Genetics of the Canadian Institutes of Health Researc

Genomic research, publics and experts in Latin America: Nation, race and body

The articles in this issue highlight contributions that studies of Latin America can make to wider debates about the effects of genomic science on public ideas about race and nation. We argue that current ideas about the power of genomics to transfigure and transform existing ways of thinking about human diversity are often overstated. If a range of social contexts are examined, the effects are uneven. Our data show that genomic knowledge can unsettle and reinforce ideas of nation and race; it can be both banal and highly politicized. In this introduction, we outline concepts of genetic knowledge in society; theories of genetics, nation and race; approaches to public understandings of science; and the Latin American contexts of transnational ideas of nation and race

Representation and misrepresentation of scientific evidence in contemporary tobacco regulation:a review of tobacco industry submissions to the UK Government consultation on standardised packaging

BACKGROUND: Standardised packaging (SP) of tobacco products is an innovative tobacco control measure opposed by transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) whose responses to the UK government's public consultation on SP argued that evidence was inadequate to support implementing the measure. The government's initial decision, announced 11 months after the consultation closed, was to wait for 'more evidence', but four months later a second 'independent review' was launched. In view of the centrality of evidence to debates over SP and TTCs' history of denying harms and manufacturing uncertainty about scientific evidence, we analysed their submissions to examine how they used evidence to oppose SP. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We purposively selected and analysed two TTC submissions using a verification-oriented cross-documentary method to ascertain how published studies were used and interpretive analysis with a constructivist grounded theory approach to examine the conceptual significance of TTC critiques. The companies' overall argument was that the SP evidence base was seriously flawed and did not warrant the introduction of SP. However, this argument was underpinned by three complementary techniques that misrepresented the evidence base. First, published studies were repeatedly misquoted, distorting the main messages. Second, 'mimicked scientific critique' was used to undermine evidence; this form of critique insisted on methodological perfection, rejected methodological pluralism, adopted a litigation (not scientific) model, and was not rigorous. Third, TTCs engaged in 'evidential landscaping', promoting a parallel evidence base to deflect attention from SP and excluding company-held evidence relevant to SP. The study's sample was limited to sub-sections of two out of four submissions, but leaked industry documents suggest at least one other company used a similar approach. CONCLUSIONS: The TTCs' claim that SP will not lead to public health benefits is largely without foundation. The tools of Better Regulation, particularly stakeholder consultation, provide an opportunity for highly resourced corporations to slow, weaken, or prevent public health policies

Funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality: are they related? Results of a pilot study

BACKGROUND: There has been increasing concern regarding the potential effects of the commercialization of research. METHODS: In order to examine the relationships between funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality, recent issues of five peer-reviewed, high impact factor, general medical journals were hand-searched to identify a sample of 100 randomized controlled trials (20 trials/journal). Relevant data, including funding source (industry/not-for-profit/mixed/not reported) and statistical significance of primary outcome (favouring new treatment/favouring conventional treatment/neutral/unclear), were abstracted. Quality scores were assigned using the Jadad scale and the adequacy of allocation concealment. RESULTS: Sixty-six percent of trials received some industry funding. Trial outcome was not associated with funding source (p= .461). There was a preponderance of favourable statistical conclusions among published trials with 67% reporting results that favored a new treatment whereas 6% favoured the conventional treatment. Quality scores were not associated with funding source or trial outcome. CONCLUSIONS: It is not known whether the absence of significant associations between funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality reflects a true absence of an association or is an artefact of inadequate statistical power, reliance on voluntary disclosure of funding information, a focus on trials recently published in the top medical journals, or some combination thereof. Continued and expanded monitoring of potential conflicts is recommended, particularly in light of new guidelines for disclosure that have been endorsed by the ICMJE