Abstract
Background
Financial relationships with industry may bias educational content delivered by physicians. SAGES strives to mitigate potential bias, relying on physician self-reporting. Retrospective review of relationships is possible using the Open Payments Database (OPD), a public record of industry-reported payments to US physicians. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the SAGES disclosure process by comparing faculty disclosures to SAGES, faculty disclosures within presentations, and OPD records among speakers at the 2018–2020 SAGES meetings.
Methods
We reviewed all presentations from the SAGES 2018–2020 Annual Meetings. For each invited presentation, all slide-disclosed relationships were recorded. For US physicians, we queried the OPD and recorded relationships ≥ $500 USD in the calendar year prior to presentation. We compared the slide-disclosed relationships with OPD-reported relationships and with those provided to SAGES during the faculty disclosure process. We surveyed a sample of the 2020 annual meeting speakers to analyze potential reasons for discordance.
Results
From 2018 to 2020, there were 1,355 invited presentations, of which 1,234 (91%) were available for review. Disclosure slides were present in 1,098 (89%), increasing from 86% in 2018 to 93% in 2020. The proportion of speakers with OPD-reported relationships ≥ $500 increased from 54% in 2018 to 66% in 2020. The total value of OPD relationships decreased from $5.9 million (2018) to $3.3 million (2020) with a concomitant decrease in the proportion with high discordance from 9% in 2018 to 5% in 2020. Among the 2020 speakers with high discordance, the most common explanations for discordance were being unaware of payment or payment outside the 12-month timeframe (55%).
Conclusions
Discordance between financial disclosures reported to SAGES and OPD highlight the need for improvements in the faculty disclosure process. SAGES will continue to streamline this process by incorporating faculty review of their OPD disclosures to ensure all educational programs remain free of commercial bias.
Graphical Abstract
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bombardier C, Laine L, Reicin A, Shapiro D, Burgos-Vargas R, Davis B, Day R, Ferraz MB, Hawkey CJ, Hochberg MC, Kvien TK, Schnitzer TJ, Group VS (2000) Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. VIGOR Study Group N Engl J Med 343(1520):1528
Romain PL (2015) Conflicts of interest in research: looking out for number one means keeping the primary interest front and center. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 8:122–127
Wilson M (2016) The New England Journal of Medicine: commercial conflict of interest and revisiting the Vioxx scandal. Indian J Med Ethics 1:167–171
Chao AH, Gangopadhyay N (2016) Industry financial relationships in plastic surgery: analysis of the sunshine act open payments database. Plast Reconstr Surg 138:341e–348e
Weiner JA, Cook RW, Hashmi S, Schallmo MS, Chun DS, Barth KA, Singh SK, Patel AA, Hsu WK (2017) Factors associated with financial relationships between spine surgeons and industry: an analysis of the open payments database. Spine 42:1412–1418
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (2010) Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) statement on the relationship between professional medical associations and industry. Surg Endosc 24:742–744
Kahn NB Jr, Lichter AS, Council of Medical Specialty S (2011) The new CMSS code for interactions with companies managing relationships to minimize conflicts. J Vasc Surg 54:34S-40S
Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (2014) Standards for Commerical Support: Standards to Ensure the Independence of CME Activities. https://www.accme.org/publications/accme-standards-for-commercial-support
McMahon GT (2018) Safeguarding physician education from inappropriate influence. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 101:261–262
Sullivan T (2018) Physician Payment Sunshine Act: final rule top 50 things to know. https://www.policymed.com/2013/02/physician-payment-sunshine-act-top-50-things-to-know.html
Ahmed AA, Yoo SK, Mehta S, Holliday EB, Deville C, Vapiwala N, Wilson LD, Jagsi R, Prasad V, Thomas CR Jr (2018) Meaningful and Accurate Disclosure of Conflict of Interest at the ASTRO National Meeting: a need for reassessment of current policies. J Oncol Pract 1:1800121
Endo JO, Myers D, Stratman EJ (2012) Conflict of interest and disclosure: analysis of American Academy of Dermatology Annual Meetings. J Am Acad Dermatol 66:e20-21
Lois AW, Ehlers AP, Minneman J, Oh JS, Khandelwal S, Wright AS (2020) Disclosure at #SAGES2018: an analysis of physician-industry relationships of invited speakers at the 2018 SAGES national meeting. Surg Endosc 34:2644–2650
Royston P (2014) PTREND: stata module for trend analysis for proportions
Hannon CP, Chalmers PN, Carpiniello MF, Cvetanovich GL, Cole BJ, Bach BR Jr (2016) Inconsistencies between physician-reported disclosures at the AAOS annual meeting and industry-reported financial disclosures in the open payments database. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98:e90
Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (2020) Standards for Integrity and Independence in Accredited Continuing Education. https://www.accme.org/accreditation-rules/standards-for-integrity-independence-accredited-ce
Acknowledgements
Jill Jurgensen and Gerri Chadwick
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosures
Dr. Lois, Dr. Denk, Dr. Sinha, Dr. Lima, and Dr. Reinke have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose. Dr. Shadduck is a consultant for Asensus Surgical and he is a consultant, speaker, and receives research support from Heron Therapeutics. Dr. Scarritt has received honoraria from Asensus and Smith + Nephew. Dr. Sylla is a consultant for Covidien/Medtronic, Ethicon, Tissium, Neptune Medical, ColubrisMX, Olympus, Heron Medical, Safeheal, GI Window, Stryker, and Fujifilm.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Meeting Presentation: Presented as a podium presentation titled “Accuracy of Financial Disclosures Among Faculty at the 2020 SAGES Annual Meeting” at SAGES 2022, Denver, CO; March 16th, 2022.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Lois, A., Schwarz, E., Shadduck, P. et al. Concordance of financial disclosures among faculty at the 2018–2020 SAGES annual meetings. Surg Endosc 37, 4877–4884 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09592-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09592-1