Jump to content


PubMed Calls Out Researcher Conflicts of Interest


10 replies to this topic

#1 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18590 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 19 April 2017 - 04:44 PM

PubMed is a search engine for medical research that is taxpayer funded. It clear discloses any conflict of interest in funding or sponsorship so people know right up front. I wonder how long before the Republicans cut its funding. Can't have that kind of information being disseminated to the public, now can we. The article leads off with a classic example of corporate sponsored research fraud.

Quote

I once got a press release about a "landmark” study showing cranberry juice could cut the risk of urinary tract infections.

This study piqued my interest. All the credible research I’d seen on cranberry juice and UTIs suggested the sweet stuff had little or no effect. So was this new study really a game-changer?

When I looked at the paper a little more closely, I found out it wasn’t just funded by Ocean Spray, one of the world’s leading makers of cranberry juice; it was also co-authored by Ocean Spray staff scientists. The food company was involved in nearly every step of the scientific process, even helping to write the paper. Upon closer scrutiny, it became clear that the study authors made a bunch of small decisions that helped ensure the “amazing” results that conveniently favored guzzling more of the red elixir.


Here's where PubMed comes in.

Quote

There’s another big problem: It can be really hard to figure out if a study has been influenced by industry. Conflict of interest information is often buried deep at the end of an article, just before the list of citations.

Now, that’s about to change: PubMed — a powerful taxpayer-funded search engine for medical study abstracts that doctors, patients, and the media rely on — just started displaying conflict of interest data up front. New information about funding sources and potential conflicts will now appear right below study abstracts, which means readers don’t have to even open a journal article to be made aware of any possible industry influence over studies.

Here’s how the new, more transparent abstracts look (the red arrow points to the change):

Posted Image


" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#2 baw1064

    formerly of the public sector

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3691 posts
  • LocationEarthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanos--oh my!

Posted 19 April 2017 - 05:01 PM

That's not completely accurate. PUBMED is just a bibliography of scientific papers in medicine and biology. It's actually the journals in which the papers are published which require disclosure of conflicts of interest. Is NIH mandating that a conflict of interest statement be done in a certain way for a journal to be abstracted in PUBMED? I don't really see how they could, since many journals are published outside the US.


The NIH does require that the full text of papers describing work funded by them be made publicly available to anyone (without a journal subscription) after one year. But not everything in PUBMED is published in a US journal, done in the US, or funded by the NIH.

That said, I like the policy of putting the declarations with the abstract.
“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, Nothing is going to get better. It's not.” --Dr. Seuss

#3 Bact PhD

    Frustrated, Thoughtful Independent

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1222 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 19 April 2017 - 06:46 PM

View Postbaw1064, on 19 April 2017 - 05:01 PM, said:

That's not completely accurate. PUBMED is just a bibliography of scientific papers in medicine and biology. It's actually the journals in which the papers are published which require disclosure of conflicts of interest.

True, and the policies for reporting COIs and their display in the article vary widely among journals, even in the US. Moreover, it's also been de rigeur to acknowledge funding sources (NIH grants, contracts with industry, eg). I pulled out my most recent pub, in a 2013 issue of PLoS One, and the funding /Conflicts are line-items right beneath the abstract:

Funding: This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants R01 XXXXX and T90 XXXXX. The sponsors had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.


However, from a publication of Chem PhD's in the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry from 2012, mention of the funding sources is in the Acknowledgements section at the end of the article.

From my experience in journal submissions, I'd say the closer the scope of the journal is to clinical trials & analyses, the more particular that journal is going to be about requiring COI disclosures up front and displaying them prominently.

Quote

Is NIH mandating that a conflict of interest statement be done in a certain way for a journal to be abstracted in PUBMED? I don't really see how they could, since many journals are published outside the US.

The NIH does require that the full text of papers describing work funded by them be made publicly available to anyone (without a journal subscription) after one year. But not everything in PUBMED is published in a US journal, done in the US, or funded by the NIH.

See above -- that sort of a mandate would be difficult to enforce, at best. Even US journals that are indexed in the PubMed database vary widely in their scope. The journals vary from highly clinically-oriented volumes (New England Journal of Medicine, eg) to seriously basic-science tomes where the chemical entities described might, possibly, maybe, someday find their way to a clinical trial (Synthesis, Tetrahedron, eg). The foreign pubs (with requirements from their respective sponsoring societies) add a whole degree of difficulty.

Quote

That said, I like the policy of putting the declarations with the abstract.

Agreed. I'd like to see funding sources, both government and industrial (grants & contracts included) displayed up-front as well.
Politics these days is show business. Elections are Dancing with the Stars with consequences. ~Rue Bella

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384, via LFC, 12/1/2016

Competent people go in one of a few directions. But incompetence is infinite. ~David Brooks, NY Times

#4 Traveler

    Rambling Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11375 posts
  • LocationPhilly Area

Posted 20 April 2017 - 09:29 AM

I have no problem with scientists affiliated with their employers writing papers about their research and/or lit reviews, so long as it is clearly stated where their interests lie. Everyone can contribute knowledge, and so long as motivations are transparent, the scientific community will review the papers accordingly.

What I find astounding is how funding of climate research is dominated by denialists. The ws a thread here on that. Yet the vast majority of papers contradict the funders belief.

BTW, for you shade tree scientists here without university access like me, use Sci-Hub. What a font of information !
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."-- Winston Churchill
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices" Voltaire

#5 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18590 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 20 April 2017 - 10:25 AM

View Postbaw1064, on 19 April 2017 - 05:01 PM, said:

That's not completely accurate. PUBMED is just a bibliography of scientific papers in medicine and biology. It's actually the journals in which the papers are published which require disclosure of conflicts of interest. Is NIH mandating that a conflict of interest statement be done in a certain way for a journal to be abstracted in PUBMED? I don't really see how they could, since many journals are published outside the US.

The problem this addresses is finding (and making searchable) any conflict of interest.

Quote

There’s another big problem: It can be really hard to figure out if a study has been influenced by industry. Conflict of interest information is often buried deep at the end of an article, just before the list of citations.

How the data gets into PubMed is addressed in the article.

Quote

The change comes a year after 62 scientists and physicians from around the world (including the head of the Center for Science in the Public Interest) lobbied for the update, part of a broader transparency movement in science. In a March 2016 letter, the experts wrote:

Quote

We strongly urge ... all journals listed in PubMed to provide information about funding sources and other possible competing interests in all abstracts. To facilitate research, the "competing interest" section should be fully searchable. Thus, PubMed would advise users about the entity or entities that funded the study and whether (a) the authors reported no competing interests; (b) the authors reported the competing interests; c) the article did not include a competing-interests disclosure statement; or (d) the journal did not provide disclosure of funding sources or the authors’ other competing interests.

One of the authors of that letter was New York University nutrition researcher Marion Nestle. She’s been tracking industry-funded studies on her blog and found 156 of 168 reported results that favored the funders’ interests. That’s more than 92 percent.

So it's quite possible for a journal to not provide the information but then you'll know that. There's a big difference between "no conflict" and "no data of potential conflict supplied".
" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#6 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18590 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 20 April 2017 - 10:29 AM

View PostTraveler, on 20 April 2017 - 09:29 AM, said:

BTW, for you shade tree scientists here without university access like me, use Sci-Hub. What a font of information !

I just tried that and it popped up a plain page with sections in English and something that looks like cyrilic telling me searching wasn't available and I should download a Chrome extension. Maybe it's legit but that's setting off every alarm bell I've got when it comes to the web.
" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#7 Traveler

    Rambling Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11375 posts
  • LocationPhilly Area

Posted 20 April 2017 - 11:48 AM

So far so good for me. It is Russian, and you have to guess what the buttons say. But Malwarebytes and webroot both have no problems. Link goes right to the site. Just paste your title, and it asks for a captcha, and then download.
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."-- Winston Churchill
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices" Voltaire

#8 AnBr

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10528 posts

Posted 20 April 2017 - 06:41 PM

View PostLFC, on 20 April 2017 - 10:29 AM, said:

I just tried that and it popped up a plain page with sections in English and something that looks like cyrilic telling me searching wasn't available and I should download a Chrome extension. Maybe it's legit but that's setting off every alarm bell I've got when it comes to the web.

Especially since there is no need for it. You can do a site search using Google.
"Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time - when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers arc in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.

— Carl Sagan
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
1995


“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

— H.L. Mencken
On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe

#9 Traveler

    Rambling Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11375 posts
  • LocationPhilly Area

Posted 21 April 2017 - 10:08 AM

Uh you completely missed my point. I use Google Scholar to run searches and track citations, although it is far less organized than say Scopus or PubMed. Still gets pretty much all the useful citations, so you right insofar as that goes.

But what I was talking about was getting the journals. While some are available as pdfs from Academia.edu or ResearchGate, most are not. So you go to Sci-Hub, and now you have almost as much access as being affiliated with the University. HUGE difference, as the best stuff isn't available for free.
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."-- Winston Churchill
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices" Voltaire

#10 AnBr

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10528 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 07:07 PM

If you are talking about a browser approved search engine that is another thing altogether.
"Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time - when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers arc in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.

— Carl Sagan
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
1995


“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

— H.L. Mencken
On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe

#11 Traveler

    Rambling Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11375 posts
  • LocationPhilly Area

Posted 22 April 2017 - 11:39 AM

I don't use it for search. I use it to get the articles. Not always successfully, but most of the time. It is a pirate site based in Russia, which is why all of the red flags.
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."-- Winston Churchill
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices" Voltaire





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users