Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Hematologist-Oncologists on Twitter

Analysis of 810 tweets from 25 unofficial ASCO representatives (Featured Voices) at ASCO 2024

AIM OF THE STUDY

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) hosts an annual conference and is one of the largest medical conferences globally. For ASCO 2024, they selected 25 Featured Voices, advertising them as individuals to follow on Twitter/X throughout the conference. The aim of this study was to characterize tweets from each of the 25 featured individuals.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE METHODS

From May 16, 2024 through June 19, 2024 we filtered tweets by using the twitter advanced search tool and applying the following criteria in the tweet text: #ASCO OR #ASCO24 OR #ASCO2024. Tweets were classified as being about research (yes or no) and if media was included (yes or no). Additional information about research related tweets was gathered, such as whether the research was observational or interventional. If it was interventional, we characterized whether the tweet was supportive, critical, or neutral of the research.

RESULTS

We find that 229 (28.3 %) of 810 tweets commented on research. Of the 229 research related tweets, 136 (59.4 %) were related to interventional trials of which they were supportive 65.3 % of the time. Media was included in 280 (34.6 %) of 810 tweets. 219 were photos of a person and 80 were selfies.

CONCLUSION

ASCO Featured Voices tweeted more photos, including selfies (n=299), than commentary about research (n=229). When research was referenced, individuals were rarely critical. Trials presented at ASCO have the ability to impact guidelines, so it is important that they are appraised critically and discussed in an unbiased way. How Featured Voices are chosen requires further scrutiny.

POLICY SUMMARY STATEMENT AT THE END

ASCO should disclose financial relationships in the future when selecting Featured Voices to represent the organization and provide insight.

Cancer misinformation on social media

Social media is widely used globally by patients, families of patients, health professionals, scientists, and other stakeholders who seek and share information related to cancer. Despite many benefits of social media for cancer care and research, there is also a substantial risk of exposure to misinformation, or inaccurate information about cancer. Types of misinformation vary from inaccurate information about cancer risk factors or unproven treatment options to conspiracy theories and public relations articles or advertisements appearing as reliable medical content. Many characteristics of social media networks-such as their extensive use and the relative ease it allows to share information quickly-facilitate the spread of misinformation. Research shows that inaccurate and misleading health-related posts on social media often get more views and engagement (e.g., likes, shares) from users compared with accurate information. Exposure to misinformation can have downstream implications for health-related attitudes and behaviors. However, combatting misinformation is a complex process that requires engagement from media platforms, scientific and health experts, governmental organizations, and the general public. Cancer experts, for example, should actively combat misinformation in real time and should disseminate evidence-based content on social media. Health professionals should give information prescriptions to patients and families and support health literacy. Patients and families should vet the quality of cancer information before acting upon it (e.g., by using publicly available checklists) and seek recommended resources from health care providers and trusted organizations. Future multidisciplinary research is needed to identify optimal ways of building resilience and combating misinformation across social media.

The Prevalence of Financial Conflict of Interest Disclosures by Endovascular Specialists on X (Twitter)

PURPOSE

To evaluate conflicts of interest (COIs) among interventional radiologists and related specialties who mention specific devices or companies on the social media (SoMe) platform X, formerly Twitter.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 13,809 posts between October 7, 2021, and December 31, 2021, on X were evaluated. Posts by U.S. interventional radiologists and related specialties who mentioned a specific device or company were identified. A positive COI was defined as receiving a payment from the device manufacturer or company within 36 months prior to posting. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payment database was used to identify financial payments. The prevalence and value of COIs were assessed and compared between posts mentioning a device or company and a paired control group using descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests and independent t tests.

RESULTS

Eighty posts containing the mention of 100 specific devices or companies were evaluated. COIs were present in 53% (53/100). When mentioning a specific device or product, 40% interventional radiologists had a COI, compared with 62% neurosurgeons. Physicians who mentioned a specific device or company were 3.7 times more likely to have a positive COI relative to the paired control group (53/100 vs 14/100; P < .001). Of the 31 physicians with a COI, the median physician received $2,270. None of the positive COIs were disclosed.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians posting on SoMe about a specific device or company were more likely to have a financial COI than authors of posts not mentioning a specific device or company. No disclosure of any COI was present in the posts, limiting followers' ability to weigh potential bias.

Financial conflicts of interest among presenters, panellists and moderators at haematology and oncology FDA workshops

OBJECTIVE

To assess the characteristics and financial conflicts of interest of presenters, panellists and moderators at haematology and oncology workshops held jointly with or hosted by the US FDA.

SETTING

We included information on all publicly available haematology or oncology FDA workshop agendas held between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2022.

EXPOSURE

General and research payments reported on Open Payments, industry funding to patient advocacy organizations reported on their webpages or 990 tax forms and employment in both pharmaceutical and regulatory settings.

RESULTS

Among physicians eligible for payments, 78% received at least one payment from the industry between 2017 and 2021. The mean general payment amount was $82,170 for all years ($16,434 per year) and the median was $14,906 for all years ($2981 per year). Sixty-nine per cent of patient advocacy speakers were representing organizations that received financial support from the pharmaceutical industry. Among those representing regulatory agencies or pharmaceutical companies, 16% had worked in both settings during their careers.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Our findings in this cross-sectional study show a majority of US-based physician presenters at haematology and oncology workshops held jointly with members of the US FDA have some financial conflict of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. These findings support the need for clear disclosures and suggest that a more balanced selection of presenters with fewer conflicts may help to limit bias in discussions between multiple stakeholders.

Financial Conflicts of Interest: Payment at the Expense of Patients?

This provocative editorial proposes four steps that can be immediately implemented to reduce the impact of financial conflicts of interest in oncology without stifling collaboration.

Financial conflicts of interest of physicians followed by oncology journals on Twitter

BACKGROUND

Physicians have increasingly adopted Twitter as a discussion and distribution platform for oncology research. While the influence of financial conflicts of interests (FCOI) on medical research is well documented, their role in the dissemination of research on social media platforms is not well known. In this study, we sought to evaluate the FCOIs of physicians followed by the top three oncology journals on Twitter.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used the Open Payments Search Tool ( https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov ) to assess FCOIs between 2016 and 2021 of United States (US) physicians followed by three oncology journals (Journal of Clinical Oncology, The Lancet Oncology, and Annals of Oncology) on Twitter.

RESULTS

Of 1914 Twitter accounts followed by the top three oncology journals on Twitter, 547 (28.6%) belonged to US physicians. Of these, 463 (84.6%) received general payments between 2016 and 2021. After excluding 30 US physicians currently in residency or fellowship, this percentage increased to 88.2% (n = 456/517). Combined, the median (interquartile range) general payment amount was $8100 ($200-90,000). Additionally, over $42 million in general payments were made between 2016 and 2021.

CONCLUSION

Our findings offer insight on FCOIs between oncology journals and US physicians on Twitter. These findings may serve as the foundation for future research regarding optimal medical journal conduct on social media platforms.

Conflict of interest and funding in health communication on social media: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To synthesise the available evidence on the reporting of conflicts of interest (COI) by individuals posting health messages on social media, and on the reporting of funding sources of studies cited in health messages on social media.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (OVID) (2005-March 2022), Embase (2005-March 2022) and Google Scholar (2005-August 2022), supplemented with a review of reference lists and forward citation tracking.

DESIGN

Reviewers selected eligible studies and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We appraised the quality of the included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We summarised the results in both narrative and tabular formats. We followed the PRISMA 2020 checklist for reporting our study.

RESULTS

Of a total of 16 645 retrieved citations, we included 17 eligible studies. The frequency of reporting of conflicts of interest varied between 0% and 60%, but it was mostly low. In addition, a significant proportion, ranging between 15% and 80%, of healthcare professionals using social media have financial relationships with industry. However, three studies assessed the proportion of conflicts of interest of physicians identified through Open Payment Database but not reported by the authors. It was found that 98.7-100% of these relationships with industry are not reported when communicating health-related information. Also, two studies showed that there is evidence of a potential association between COI and the content of posting. No data was found on the reporting of funding sources of studies cited in health messages on social media.

CONCLUSIONS

While a significant proportion of healthcare professionals using social media have financial relationships with industry, lack of reporting on COI and undisclosed COI are common. We did not find studies on the reporting of funding sources of studies cited in health messages on social media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.5jyl8jj4rg2w/v1.

Quality of content reporting on two major oncology media websites: OncLive and Targeted Oncology

INTRODUCTION

Oncology media websites such as Oncology Live (OncLive) and Targeted Oncology (TargetedOnc) play an important role in the dissemination of oncology news to patients and clinicians; however, the quality of the content on these websites has not been assessed. Our study aimed to analyze content from these websites and assess financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) amongst speakers interviewed on these websites.

METHODS

Articles published on OncLive and TargetedOnc during October 2021, were prospectively captured and analyzed. The primary outcome of our study was the quality of oncology news reporting in OncLive and TargetedOnc. We assessed the FCOI amongst speakers using data from Open Payments.

RESULTS

We examined 196 articles (OncLive 108, TargetedOnc 88). Limitations of cited research were reported in 7% (7/105) of OncLive and zero TargetedOnc articles. Benefit and risks in absolute numbers were reported in 28% (28/99) of OncLive and 16% (7/45) of TargetedOnc articles. Independent experts were quoted in 47% (51/108) and 51% (44/86) of the OncLive and TargetedOnc articles, respectively (Table 3). Pharmaceutical executives were quoted in 18% (20/108) and 11% (10/88) of OncLive and TargetedOnc articles, respectively. No FCOI disclosures were listed or reported for any articles. The mean general payment received from industry by United States physicians was $63,861 in 2019 and $39,639 in 2020.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates low quality and potentially biased reporting of oncology news on OncLive and TargetedOnc. Careful safeguards, oversight and reporting of relevant FCOI are needed to maintain the quality and transparency of content being provided.

Financial conflicts of interest of physicians followed by neurosurgical journals on Twitter

BACKGROUND

Social 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 METHODS

We 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.

RESULTS

We 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.

CONCLUSION

These 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.

Value in Myeloma Care: Myth or Reality

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite tremendous advances in multiple myeloma (MM) care, the disease maintains considerable morbidity and requires long-term treatment associated with significant financial toxicity to patients and high costs to society. In this review, we explore why - despite treatment advances - value in MM treatment is largely a myth, then explain some ways the myth might become a reality.

RECENT FINDINGS

We discuss how value-based care in MM should include patient-centered outcomes such as financial toxicity and quality of life, which are heavily impacted by cost of drugs and the indefinite duration of therapy that is standard in MM treatment. We propose multiple paths to work toward reducing cost and augmenting value of care for patients with MM, including improving access to generic drugs, increasing federal funding for clinical trials, designing more patient-centric clinical trials, and exploring the utilization of minimal residual disease (MRD)-driven treatment de-escalation, among others. We remain optimistic that despite the challenges, we can work toward making progress in the realm of value-based care for patients with MM and make it a reality.

Social Media and Professional Development for Oncology Professionals

The use of social media continues to increase in health care and academia. Health care practice, particularly the oncologic field, is constantly changing because of new knowledge, evidence-based research, clinical trials, and government policies. Therefore, oncology trainees and professionals continue to strive to stay up-to-date with practice guidelines, research, and skills. Although social media as an educational and professional development tool is no longer completely new to medicine and has been embraced, it is still under-researched in terms of various outcomes. Social media plays several key roles in professional development and academic advancement. We reviewed the literature to evaluate how social media can be used for professional development and academic promotion of oncology professionals.

Using Twitter to promote #orthodontic research and clinical innovations: Practice and challenges

While Twitter has substantial benefits in real-time sharing and dissemination of information and facilitating discussions, currently there is a noticeable absence of its use in the orthodontic profession and peer-reviewed journals. This review aims to introduce the basics of using social media; provide a perspective and prospective vision on effective practices on the use of Twitter in sharing orthodontic discoveries and clinical innovations; and discuss the limitations and caveats of using such approaches in sharing and assimilating information. There has been increasing debate on the potential role of social media, specifically Twitter, in shaping the way scholars and clinicians access, discuss, and disseminate research and clinical innovations. Despite various caveats, such as misinformation, privacy concerns, and unprofessionalism, Twitter can be used to efficiently share discoveries and innovations and facilitate networking. Thus, the use of Twitter during professional orthodontic meetings can enhance their impact by enabling nonattendees to participate in the meeting virtually and in real time. Moreover, utilization of Twitter by peer-reviewed journals can aid in enhancing the dissemination of information. That, with the optimization of algorithms and strategies, can also maximize reach and impact. Future efforts are essential to develop standardized guidelines for the use of Twitter among orthodontic healthcare professionals and scholars to better manage scientific integrity, privacy, and ethical concerns. Professional orthodontic organizations, journals, and researchers should be aware of the potential benefits of Twitter strategies that could be applied to maximize the impact and dissemination of orthodontic discoveries to reach the largest possible audience that will facilitate collaboration and discussion, and advance the delivery of cutting-edge treatments.

Interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and the practice, knowledge and beliefs of medical oncologists and clinical haematologists: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

No previous review has assessed the extent and effect of industry interactions on medical oncologists and haematologists specifically.

METHODS

A systematic review investigated interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and how these might affect the clinical practice, knowledge and beliefs of cancer physicians. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science Core Collection databases were searched from inception to February 2021.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine cross-sectional and two cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. These were classified into three categories of investigation: (1) extent of exposure to industry for cancer physicians as whole (n = 11); (2) financial ties among influential cancer physicians specifically (n = 11) and (3) associations between industry exposure and prescribing (n = 9). Cancer physicians frequently receive payments from or maintain financial ties with industry, at a prevalence of up to 63% in the United States (US) and 70.6% in Japan. Among influential clinicians, 86% of US and 78% of Japanese oncology guidelines authors receive payments. Payments were associated with either a neutral or negative influence on the quality of prescribing practice. Limited evidence suggests oncologists believe education by industry could lead to unconscious bias.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial evidence of frequent relationships between cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry in a range of high-income countries. More research is needed on clinical implications for patients and better management of these relationships.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO identification number CRD42020143353.

Do Editorialists With Industry-Related Conflicts of Interest Write Unduly Favorable Editorials for Cancer Drugs in Top Journals?

BACKGROUND

Editorials accompanying the publication of trials in major oncology journals can have a substantial influence on clinical practice. We describe the prevalence of financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) of authors writing such editorials and the extent to which FCOIs may shape the interpretation of clinical trials.

METHODS

We examined editorials published in 2018 alongside trial reports in the top 5 journals that publish cancer drug trials (New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Lancet Oncology, JAMA Oncology, and Journal of Clinical Oncology). An editorial was considered to have an FCOI if at least one of the editorialists had any disclosed FCOI. An FCOI with the same company whose drug was being discussed in the editorial was classified as a direct FCOI. Editorials were reviewed for their content and classified as being unduly favorable (defined as the presence of a positive spin without discussion of limitations) or not. Association of an FCOI and a direct FCOI with writing an unduly favorable editorial was assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 90 editorials assessed, 74% (n=67) were classified as having an FCOI with the pharmaceutical industry, and 39% (n=35) had an FCOI with the same company whose product was being discussed in the editorial (direct FCOI). Editorials were classified as being unduly favorable toward the study drug in 12% (8 of 67) and 13% (3 of 23) (P=1.0) of those with and without FCOIs, respectively; corresponding rates with and without direct FCOI were 23% (8 of 35) and 5% (3 of 55), respectively (P=.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Editorials in top oncology journals were frequently authored by experts with FCOIs, including direct FCOIs. Authoring an unduly favorable editorial for a new cancer drug was significantly associated with the author having a direct FCOI with the same company. These findings support the call for journals to ensure that authors of editorials have no direct FCOIs.

Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest: An Assessment of Twitter Posts in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate compliance with confidentiality and conflicts of interest (COI) in tweets sharing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy videos/images.

METHODS

Physicians' tweets containing GI endoscopy videos/images were assessed for confidentiality and COI compliance.

RESULTS

Identifiable details in tweets included procedure date (17.9%), date of birth (0.8%), and patient's face visible (0.5%). Ninety-five tweets (10%) mentioned the name/brand of a medical device. Of the 19 posted by US physicians, 7 came from physicians who had received payments from the device manufacturer. None of these physicians disclosed relevant COI.

DISCUSSION

GI endoscopy tweets describing clinical cases or procedures may insufficiently address issues of confidentiality and COI.

Quality Appraisal and Assurance Techniques for Free Open Access Medical Education (FOAM) Resources: A Rapid Review

Free open access medical education (FOAM) has disrupted traditional modes of knowledge translation and dissemination. These are popular resources with a wide educational reach. Nephrology has been a leader in FOAM, but many skeptics still question the accuracy and reliability of this content. Recently, quality-assurance techniques have been developed to address these concerns. These techniques may be helpful for readers to appraise the online literature and for institutions to reward the production of high-quality open educational resources. We performed a rapid review of the literature. A medical librarian conducted a systematic search of the Medline and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. Two independent assessors screened and selected articles, performed a hand-search of reference lists, and scored articles on their quality using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument. Thirteen reports were included for the final descriptive analysis. We identified 10 quality-assessment techniques, and 4 of them having been validated. The quality of the reports was fairly high, with an average Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument score of 11.5 of 18 (SD, 2.3; range, 7.25-14.25). The calculated Cronbach α was 0.85. There is burgeoning literature on the topic of critical appraisal of open educational resources, and, more specifically, FOAM resources. Many of the techniques used are of varying quality and developed with different intended uses and audiences. By continuing to refine these tools, we can continue not only to support and legitimize the FOAM movement, but also foster individual critical appraisal skills that increasingly are necessary in this age of information.

Tweeting from the Bench: Twitter and the Physician-Scientist Benefits and Challenges

Purpose of Review

Social media platforms such as Twitter are increasingly utilized to interact, collaborate, and exchange information within the academic medicine community. However, as Twitter begins to become formally incorporated into professional meetings, educational activities, and even the consideration of academic promotion, it is critical to better understand both the benefits and challenges posed by this platform.

Recent Findings

Twitter use is rising amongst healthcare providers nationally and internationally, including in the field of hematology and oncology. Participation on Twitter at national conferences such as the annual meetings of American Society of Hematology (ASH) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has steadily increased over recent years. Tweeting can be used advantageously to cultivate opportunities for networking or collaboration, promote one’s research and increase access to other’s research, and provide efficient means of learning and educating. However, given the novelty of this platform and little formal training on its use, concerns regarding patient privacy, professionalism, and equity must be considered.

Summary

These new technologies present unique opportunities for career development, networking, research advancement, and efficient learning. From “tweet ups” to Twitter journal clubs, physician-scientists are quickly learning how to capitalize on the opportunities that this medium offers. Yet caution must be exercised to ensure that the information exchanged is valid and true, that professionalism is maintained, that patient privacy is protected, and that this platform does not reinforce preexisting structural inequalities.

Financial Conflicts of Interest Change After a High-Impact Clinical Trial Publication in Oncology

Purpose

Because financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) may potentially influence patient care, hospital drug formularies, and treatment guidelines, it is important that these are disclosed. The purpose of this observational study was to quantify the changes in FCOI among U.S.-based academic authors in industry-sponsored oncology trials after a high-impact publication.

Methods

A list of all U.S.-based academic authors (authors) of industry-sponsored solid tumor clinical trials published between August 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015, in 6 high-impact journals (New England Journal of Medicine, Nature, Science, Lancet Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, and Cancer Discovery) was assembled. Studies were limited to solid tumor oncology trials. After all authors were identified, direct and research funding was tabulated from CMS Open Payments for the year prior (Ypre) and the first 3 years following publication (Y1, Y2, Y3) in the high-impact journal. Summary statistics were tabulated and repeated-measures linear mixed-effects regression models were fit to examine changes after publication.

Results

A total of 102 publications with a total of 620 authors were identified. No FCOI was declared by 11, 12, 21, and 24 authors in Ypre, Y1, Y2, and Y3, respectively. In Ypre, Y1, Y2, and Y3: median FCOI for direct payments was $16,702 (range: $0-$3,180,356), $20,830 (range: $0-$3,180,356), $22,031 (range: $0-$920,746), and $21,356 (range: $0-$920,707), respectively; while median research funding was $559,202 (range: $0-$19,973,818), $505,031 (range $0-$19,920,452), $502,726 (range: $0-$15,729,776), and $497,342 (range: $0-$43,036,716), respectively. There were nonsignificant increases in total direct payments and total direct payments received from the sponsor (P>0.0125 for both) and statistically significant decreases in total associated research funding and total research funding from the research sponsor in Y1, Y2, and Y3 as compared to Ypre (P<0.0001 for both).

Conclusions

After publication of an industry-sponsored solid tumor clinical trial in a high-impact journal, authors had statistically significant decreases in research funding FCOI in the first 3 years postpublication compared to the year prior.

European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2018 Congress Twitter analysis: from ethics to results through the understanding of communication and interaction flows

Background

Twitter is a microblogging service providing a platform for social networking. For medical information, Twitter is an interesting channel for sharing and spreading information and as an engagement platform for different stakeholders. Benefits and caveats of uncontrolled medical information must be carefully pondered, considering the possible intended and unintended adverse outcomes of uncontrolled influencing. The aim of this study was to describe the non-commercial content shared on Twitter and to analyse the level of influence of commercial tweeters during the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2018 annual meeting held in Munich.

Design/methodology

A retrospective analysis of the tweets shared in the period 19–23 October 2018 indexed with the hashtag #ESMO18 or #ESMO2018 was performed; methodology of systematic reviews was mirrored. Commercial tweeters (pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, device manufacturers and spam tweeters) were excluded from the primary analysis, and only non-commercial tweets from and about the congress were included. Tweets were analysed using a network analytical tool (NodeXL).

Results

A total of 7100 tweets posted by 1334 tweeters were identified for the period of interest. Less than 10% of tweeters were identified as commercial, posting 15.7% of tweets and receiving almost one-quarter of retweets. However, pharmaceutical and biotech tweeters were substantially less likely to be mentioned by other tweeters. All of the top 10 retweeters of non-commercial content were clinicians and/or professional organisations, in stark contrast with the commercial content.

Conclusions

The use of social networks in medical meetings, including oncology, is increasing for real-time communication and informed opinion-making. The uncontrolled spread of information on Twitter can both stimulate discussions on non-official and non-canonical channels of communication and provide uncontrolled influencing of diverse stakeholders. The disclosure of financial declarations of interest on Twitter could enhance the transparency of the information, as is already happening in medical journals.

Indication of Measures of Uncertainty for Statistical Significance in Abstracts of Published Oncology Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

There is growing consensus that reliance on P values, particularly a cutoff level of .05 for statistical significance, is a factor in the challenges in scientific reproducibility. Despite this consensus, publications describing clinical trial results with P values near .05 anecdotally use declarative statements that do not express uncertainty.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify uncertainty expression in abstracts describing the results of cancer randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with P values between .01 and .10 and examine whether trial features are associated with uncertainty expression.

DATA SOURCES

A total of 5777 prospective trials indexed on HemOnc.org, as of September 15, 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

Two-arm RCTs with a superiority end point with P values between .01 and .10.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Abstracts were evaluated based on an uncertainty expression algorithm. Ordinal logistic regression modeling with multiple imputation was performed to identify whether characteristics of study design, results, trial authors, and context P values were normalized by dividing by prespecified α value.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Uncertainty expression in abstracts as determined by the algorithm and its association with trial and publication characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 5777 trials screened, 556 met analysis criteria. Of these, 222 trials (39.9%) did not express uncertainty, 161 trials (29.0%) expressed some uncertainty, and 173 trials (31.1%) expressed full uncertainty. In ordinal logistic regression with multiple imputation, trial features with statistically significant associations with uncertainty expression included later year of publication (odds ratio [OR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.24-2.32; P < .001), normalized P value (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.11-1.67; P = .003), noncooperative group studies (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.12-2.63; P = .01), and reporting an end point other than overall survival (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.01-1.96; P = .047). Funding source, number of authors, journal impact tier, author nationality, study of unapproved drugs, abstract word count, whether the marginal end point was a primary or coprimary end point, and effect size (in subgroup analysis) did not have statistically significant associations with uncertainty expression.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Published oncology articles with marginally significant results may often incompletely convey uncertainty. Although it appears that more uncertainty is expressed in recent abstracts, full uncertainty expression remains uncommon, and seemingly is less common when reporting overall survival, results with P values lower than α levels, and cooperative group studies.

Lack of accountability in upholding authorship standards in prominent medical oncology clinical trials

Authorship in biomedical publications is critical for establishing accountability and contribution toward clinical and scientific research. We examined the frequency of discordance in authorship between presentations of clinical trial data at annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the subsequent peer-reviewed publications. We found that more than 70% of subsequent publications had additional authors not originally present on the abstract despite there being no changes in trial accrual or trial design. This pervasive discordance in authorship demonstrates a lack of uniformity and accountability in authorship reporting standards.

Discordant financial conflicts of interest disclosures between clinical trial conference abstract and subsequent publication

Background

Financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) are known to be prevalent in medicine. Authorship of pivotal trials reap non-financial benefits including publication productivity that can be used for assessment of tenure positions and promotion. The purpose of this investigation was to quantify the prevalence and discordance of academic trial author (authors) FCOI in industry-sponsored drug trials that were initially presented as oral abstracts and subsequently resulted in a peer-reviewed publication.

Methods

Oral abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2017 Annual Meeting that were subsequently published were identified. Studies that were non-industry sponsored, non-adult, or non-therapeutic trials were excluded. Studies that did not have a subsequent peer-reviewed publication or had a publication preceding the ASCO 2017 Annual Meeting were also excluded. FCOI was categorized and impact factor (IF) for the journal at the time of publication was retrieved. FCOI discordance between the oral abstract and publication was calculated based on geographic location and IF.

Results

A total of 22 paired abstract and publications met inclusion criteria for further analysis. A total of 384 authors were identified, of these 280 authors (74.1%) were included in both the oral abstract and subsequent publication. A total of 76% of these 280 authors had FCOI and 66.4% had FCOI discordance. There were statistically significant differences for the sum of FCOI discordance for U.S.-based authors (p = 0.0004) but not for journal IF. When analyzing the sum of absolute differences of FCOI discordance, statistical significance was reached for authors from any of the three geographic regions, as well as, low and high IF journals (all p-values < 0.0001).

Conclusions

This study draws attention to the lack of uniformity and vetting of FCOI reporting in abstracts and journals publishing solid tumor oncology trial results. This is particularly concerning, since FCOI is prevalent globally.

Conflicts of interest in infection prevention and control research: no smoke without fire. A narrative review

Conflicts of interest (COIs) do occur in healthcare research, yet their impact on research in the field of infection prevention and control (IPC) is unknown. We conducted a narrative review aiming to identify examples of COIs in IPC research. In addition to well-known instances, we conducted PubMed and Google searches to identify and report case studies of COIs in IPC and antimicrobial resistance (AMR), which were chosen arbitrarily following consensus meetings, to illustrate different types of COIs. We also searched the Retraction Watch database and blog to systematically identify retracted IPC and/or infectious disease-related papers. Our review highlights COIs in academic research linked to ties between industry and physicians, journal editors, peer-reviewed journals' choice for publication, and guideline committees participants and authors. It explores how COIs can affect research and could be managed. We also present several selected case studies that involve (1) the chlorhexidine industry and how it has used marketing trials and key opinion leaders to promote off-label use of its products; (2) the copper industry and how reporting of its trials in IPC have furthered their agenda; (3) the influence of a company developing "closed infusion systems" for catheters and how this affects networks in low- and middle-income countries and guideline development; (4) potential perverse incentives hospitals may have in reporting healthcare-associated infection or AMR rates and how government intervention may restrict AMR research for fear of bad publicity and subsequent negative economic consequences. Finally, the analysis of reasons for the retraction of previously published papers highlights the fact that misconduct in research may have other motivations than financial gain, the most visible form of COIs. COIs occur in the field of research in general, and IPC and AMR are no exceptions. Their effects pervade all aspects of the research and publication processes. We believe that, in addition to improvements in management strategies of COIs, increased public funding should be available to decrease researchers' dependency on industry ties. Further research is needed on COIs and their management.

Choosing wisely in oncology: necessity and obstacles

In the last decades, the survival of many patients with cancer improved thanks to modern diagnostic methods and progresses in therapy. Still for several tumours, especially when diagnosed at an advanced stage, the benefits of treatment in terms of increased survival or quality of life are at best modest when not marginal, and should be weighed against the potential discomfort caused by medical procedures. As in other specialties, in oncology as well the dialogue between doctor and patient should be encouraged about the potential overuse of diagnostic procedures or treatments. Several oncological societies produced recommendations similar to those proposed by other medical disciplines adhering to the Choosing Wisely (CW) campaign. In this review, we describe what was reported in the medical literature concerning adequacy of screening, diagnostic, treatment and follow-up procedures and the potential impact on them of the CW. We only marginally touch on the more complex topic of treatment appropriateness, for which several evaluation methods have been developed (including the European Society for Medical Oncology-magnitude of clinical benefit scale). Finally, we review the possible obstacles for the development of CW in the oncological setting and focus on the strategies which could allow CW to evolve in the cancer field, so as to enhance the therapeutic relationship between medical professionals and patients and promote more appropriate management.

The relation between publication rate and financial conflict of interest among physician authors of high-impact oncology publications: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Despite the abundant research on financial conflict of interest regarding provider behaviour and the interpretation and results of research, little is known about the relation between these conflicts in academia and the trajectory of one's academic career. We performed a study to examine whether the presence of financial ties to drug makers among academics is associated with research productivity.

METHODS

We hand-searched 3 high-impact general medical journals (New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA and The Lancet) and 3 high-impact oncology journals that publish original science (The Lancet Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology and Journal of the National Cancer Institute) to identify physicians based in the United States who were first or last authors on original papers on hematologic or oncologic topics that appeared in 2015. We ascertained their publication history from Scopus and their personal and research payments from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Open Payments Web site (2013-2015). The strength of association between general (personal) financial payments from 2013 to 2015 and publications from 2013 to 2016 was determined by multivariate regression.

RESULTS

Our sample consisted of 435 physicians who had authored a median of 140 publications, earning a median h-index of 36 and a median of 5639 citations. The median total of general payments from 2013 to 2015 was US$3282 (range $0-$3.4 million), and the median amount of research payments was US$3500 (range $0-$23 million). General payments were associated with contemporary publications, with an increase of 1.99 papers (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 to 2.9) per $10 000 in payments. This association persisted in multivariate analysis after adjustment for prior publications, seniority and research payments (0.84 papers [95% CI 0.15 to 1.5] per $10 000 in payments).

INTERPRETATION

The findings suggest that there is a positive association between personal payments from drug makers and publications, and that this association persists after adjustment for prior publications, time since medical school graduation and research payments.

The use and impact of Twitter at medical conferences: Best practices and Twitter etiquette

The use of social media, and in particular, Twitter, for professional use among healthcare providers is rapidly increasing across the world. One medical subspecialty that is leading the integration of this new platform for communication into daily practice and for information dissemination to the general public is the field of hematology/oncology. A growing amount of research in this area demonstrates that there is increasing interest among physicians to learn not only how to use social media for consumption of educational material, but also how to generate and contribute original content in one's interest/expert areas. One aspect in which this phenomenon has been highlighted is at the time of maximum new information presentation: at a major medical conference. Hematologists/oncologists are engaging regularly in one of the most common forms of social media, Twitter, during major medical conferences, for purposes of debate, discussion, and real-time evaluation of the data being presented. As interest has grown in this area, this article aims to review the new norms, practices, and impact of using Twitter at the time of medical conferences, and also explores some of the barriers and pitfalls that users are encountering in this emerging field.

Disease-specific hashtags and the creation of Twitter medical communities in hematology and oncology

Twitter is being increasingly used for information gathering and dissemination of ideas in both medical practice and scientific research. A major limitation to its use has been the surplus of available information and difficulty in categorizing that information into topics of individual interest. However, a Twitter feature known as the hashtag (#), which denotes a specific category or topic, helps in streamlining this wealth of information. The creation and adoption of disease-specific hashtags by healthcare stakeholders has led to a greater uniformity of medical discussions that can be retrieved and referenced at later time-points. As new disease-specific hashtags are created for hematologic and oncologic diseases, more users can connect across the world, even for the rarest of cancer subtypes. A major challenge for this emerging application will be the development of specific and easily identifiable hashtags over time to add more clarity, while still trying to grow Twitter users and expand its reach.

Risks and benefits of Twitter use by hematologists/oncologists in the era of digital medicine

Twitter use by physicians, including those in the hematology-oncology field, is increasing. This microblogging platform provides a means to communicate and collaborate on a global scale. For the oncology professional, an active Twitter presence provides opportunities for continuing medical education, patient engagement and education, personal branding, and reputation management. However, because Twitter is an open, public forum, potential risks such as patient privacy violations, personal information disclosures, professionalism lapses, and time management need to be considered and managed. The authors have summarized the benefits and risks of Twitter use by the hematology-oncology physician. In addition, strategies to maximize benefit and minimize risk are discussed, and resources for additional learning are provided.