Payments by US pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to US medical journal editors: retrospective observational study
BMJ 2017; 359 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4619 (Published 26 October 2017) Cite this as: BMJ 2017;359:j4619
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
See also http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435611002496 "Thirteen percent of [medical] editors (N=11, 95% CI 7-21) received industry funding as salary income or directly in support of research". Here's how the editors estimate it ...
Competing interests: No competing interests
I would like to provide further data regarding payments to editors of pathology journals. Research into physician financial conflict of interest doesn’t often prioritize pathology. This may be in part due to a lower proportion of pathologists receiving payments from industry compared to most other specialties.[1] However, this lack of attention may also be due to the mistaken belief that these payments are not relevant. Pathologists play a pivotal role in test selection and interpretation. Through the use of companion diagnostics, pathologists directly influence treatment decisions for costly cancer drugs.[2]
I selected the pathology journals associated with the major American pathology societies. These journals are Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine (College of American Pathologists), Modern Pathology, Laboratory Investigation (United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology), Journal of Molecular Diagnostics (Association for Molecular Pathology), Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology (American Society of Cytopathology), American Journal of Clinical Pathology (American Society for Clinical Pathology), and the American Journal of Surgical Pathology (Arthur Purdy Stout Society). These journals are influential in the clinical practice of pathology.
I retrieved all editors listed on the journal websites (September 2017). Junior editors and editorial board members were included. I removed all editors clearly designated as non-physicians or residing outside the United States. I removed duplicate names across journals. This resulted in a list of 818 unique editors. I downloaded the database of 2016 general payments for the specialty of pathology from the Open Payments website.[3] I retrieved payment information for these editors by matching first and last name. I generated descriptive statistics for payments to journal editors and all pathologists in these data.
203/818 editors (24.8%) received $1,449,999.02 general (non-research) industry payments in 2016 (mean per pathologist: $7,142.85, median per pathologist: $774.34, range per pathologist: $10.82- $111,293.18). Overall, 4,836 pathologists (26.9% using an 18,000 workforce estimate[4]) received $14,154,276.35 in industry payments (mean: $2,926.86, median: $88.97, range: $1.06-$683,102.53).
Editors were not more likely to receive payments than pathologists in general (p=0.195, Chi-Square), but among those editors who did receive payments, the average payment per pathologist was significantly higher (mean p=0.004, two-tailed t-test; median p<0.001, two-tailed Mann-Whitney).
Pathologists are an indispensable part of patient care and advancing biomedical science. The data show that the pharmaceutical and medical device industries are keenly aware of this. Despite some other specialties receiving a greater amount of industry payments, I hope we do not succumb to glib relativism by downplaying any conflict of interest. Pathologists should self-monitor our profession to ensure these potential financial conflicts do not interfere with clinical practice in matters of test purchasing, selection or interpretation, as well as in scientific endeavors.
[1] Tringale KR, Marshall D, Mackey TK, Connor M, Murphy JD, Hattangadi-Gluth JA. Types and distribution of payments from industry to physicians in 2015. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2017 May 2;317(17):1774-84.
[2] https://www.statnews.com/2017/10/30/cancer-diagnosis-pathologists/
[3] https://www.cms.gov/OpenPayments/Explore-the-Data/Dataset-Downloads.html
[4] Robboy SJ, Weintraub S, Horvath AE, Jensen BW, Alexander CB, Fody EP, Crawford JM, Clark JR, Cantor-Weinberg J, Joshi MG, Cohen MB. Pathologist workforce in the United States: I. Development of a predictive model to examine factors influencing supply. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. 2013 Jun 5;137(12):1723-32.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Payments by US pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to US medical journal editors: retrospective observational study
Very interesting. I agree with posted BMJ editors comments that problem is likely worse with smaller journals, and especially those which are basically advertising vehicles. See, for example, re Depression and Anxiety:
https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Depression%20and%20Anxiety%...(Feb%209,%202000)1.pdf
or
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulthacker/2011/09/13/how-an-ethically-cha...
I wonder whether authors could post as a supplement the links to openpayments for each editor in the supplementary tables. Is there some reason to keep that information secret, given that the research undertaken by Liu et al might be reproduced by anyone willing to take the time?
Thank you
Tom Perry MD
Competing interests: No competing interests