3 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Financial conflicts of interest of OncoAlert: An informal oncology professional network.
ImportanceSocial media platforms have allowed the formation of informal professional healthcare networks. Transparency in funding, membership requirements, financial conflicts of interest (FCOI), and messaging are necessary to ensure best practices for similar networks in the future.ObjectiveTo analyze the FCOIs of US-based physician members of the OncoAlert Network and appraise the content of their public Twitter account.Design, setting, participantsThis cross-sectional study assessed the FCOIs among US-based physician members of the OncoAlert Network between 2015 and 2020. FCOI data were obtained through the Open Payments Database. Additionally, tweets were examined for content analysis.Main outcomes and measuresThe number of US-based physician members with FCOIs with the pharmaceutical industry; the amount of general, research, and associated research payments; and the perceived attitude of tweet content from the OncoAlert Network Twitter account.ResultsOf 34 US physician members of the OncoAlert Network, 31 (91.2%) received general payments from pharmaceutical companies according to the Open Payments Database. Between 2015 and 2020, US physician members of the OncoAlert Network received a median of 7,200-100,000 in general payments. Additionally, 480 (15.7 %) of 3064 tweets retrieved from the OncoAlert Twitter account mentioned a drug or clinical trial. Of these, 31.6 % (n = 152) had a positive disposition and 3.3 % (n = 16) were negative or critical.Conclusions and relevanceOver 90% of US physician members of the OncoAlert Network had FCOIs between 2015 and 2020. Despite the network's non-profit status, FCOIs amongst its members may influence content produced on the network's social media platforms, such as Twitter, where content discussing drugs and clinical trials are often positive and seldom negative or critical. For future informal professional networks, further research is required to establish best practices for issues such as membership requirements, funding, and FCOI disclosure
Recommended from our members
Financial conflicts of interest of physicians followed by neurosurgical journals on Twitter
BackgroundSocial media, particularly Twitter, has played an increasing role in networking and the dissemination of neurosurgical research. Despite extensive study on financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) influencing medical research, little is known about the function of conflicts of interest on social media and the influence they may have. In this study, we sought to evaluate the FCOI of physicians followed on Twitter by the top three neurosurgical journals.Materials and methodsWe analysed the FCOI of United States (US) physicians followed by the top three neurosurgical journals (Journal of Neurosurgery, World Neurosurgery, Neurosurgery) on Twitter. We determined the FCOIs of each physician using the Open Payments Search Tool located at https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov and summed the data between 2014 and 2021.ResultsWe examined 2651 Twitter accounts followed by the top three neurosurgical journals on Twitter and determined 705 (26.6%) belonged to US physicians. Of the 705 US physicians, 577 (81.8%) received general payments between 2014 and 2021. After excluding US physicians currently in residency or fellowship (n = 157), this percentage increased to 93.2% (n = 511/548). In total, nearly $70 million in general payments were made between 2014 and 2021.ConclusionThese findings raise questions regarding the interaction between neurosurgical journals and the medical community on Twitter. This study may serve as the basis for future work on best practices for medical journals navigating their affiliations on Twitter
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on early termination of ophthalmology clinical trials: A cross-sectional analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov
Objective: To study the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the early termination of ophthalmology clinical trials. Methods: On June 10, 2022, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and identified clinical trials pertaining to eye diseases. We included trials last updated between January 1, 2020 and June 8, 2022, as ones possibly impacted by the pandemic. We selected all interventional trials in any stage and country that were “recruiting,” “active, not recruiting,” “enrolling by invitation,” “suspended,” “terminated,” “completed,” or “withdrawn” and excluded trials that had been completed or discontinued before 2020, had incomplete data, trials in which the eye was not the primary focus of the trial (e.g., Chediak-Higashi syndrome, myasthenia gravis). The following trial-level characteristics were collected: location, trial status, enrollment count, ocular condition, sponsors, intervention purpose, trial phase (I–IV), randomization, number of arms, and reasons for discontinuation. In addition to calculating descriptive statistics, we assessed whether trial characteristics differed between ophthalmology clinical trials canceled due to COVID-19 and those canceled for other reasons. Results: Following the screening, 2280/12,679 (18%) ophthalmology clinical trials were retained. Of these, 142 (6.2%) were discontinued between January 1, 2020 and June 8, 2022. Moreover, 34 out of 142 (23.9%) ophthalmology clinical trials were discontinued due to COVID-19. These trials were more likely to be sponsored by academic medical centers (26/34, 76.5% vs 57/108, 52.8%, p  = 0.03) and were not assigned to a specific study phase, indicating they were not investigational new drugs (22/34, 64.7% vs 46/108 42.6%, p  = 0.003). Conclusions: COVID-19-related trial discontinuations were more likely to be reported by academic medical centers and associated with trials investigating fully approved drugs, medical devices, procedures, diagnostic imaging, and behavioral changes. Further investigation of these characteristics may lead to a more robust and resilient understanding of the causes of early termination of these clinical trials