-
J Bone Joint Surg Am · Jul 2011
Substantial variation in the interpretation of financial disclosure policies for orthopaedic society meetings.
- Kolawole Jegede, Peter Whang, and Jonathan N Grauer.
- Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.
- J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Jul 6;93(13):e75.
BackgroundPhysician disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is currently controversial. To address this issue, orthopaedic societies have implemented a variety of guidelines related to potential conflict-of-interest disclosure. Transparency is crucial to address the concerns about potential conflict-of-interest disclosure. Nonetheless, prior studies have noted substantial discrepancies in disclosures to societies for individual authors who present their research work at multiple conferences. Our goal was to evaluate the ability of orthopaedic surgeons to interpret disclosure policy statements regarding project-specific or global disclosure instructions.MethodsThe disclosure policy statements of the ten conferences most frequently attended by this group were collected, and selected statements were compiled into a questionnaire survey that was administered to orthopaedic faculty and trainees at our institution. Subjects were asked to read each statement and identify whether they interpreted the policy to be requesting project-specific disclosures (potential conflict of interest related to the research work in the abstract being submitted) or global disclosure (inclusive of all potential conflicts of interest, including those not associated with the abstract being submitted). The correct responses were identified by communicating with the individual societies and determining the responses desired by the society.ResultsThe study had a 100% return rate from seventeen orthopaedic faculty, twenty-five orthopaedic residents and fellows, and twenty-five medical students. The average number of incorrect responses to the ten questions was 2.8. Forty-six percent of respondents had three or more incorrect responses, 24% had two incorrect responses, 19% had one incorrect response, and 10% had no incorrect responses. There was no significant difference in responses between those of different training levels. Subjects were no more likely to answer a project-specific question incorrectly than they were to answer a global question incorrectly.ConclusionsThis study clearly demonstrated a discrepancy between what societies intend to identify with disclosure policies and what the orthopaedist interprets is intended. Almost half of those completing the survey did not correctly understand the intention of three or more of the policies, even with expected study intent bias. This study showed that the language used in disclosure policy statements and the lack of a uniform policy may be a cause of substantial discrepancies in potential conflict-of-interest disclosure.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.