Industry Payments Received by the Editors of the Top 100 Surgery Journals

Analysis of Industry-Related Payments Among Physician Editors of Pathology Journals

OBJECTIVES

Gender inequities in editorial board representation and physician compensation are well documented, but few studies have focused on how editors of journals are compensated.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we examined industry-related compensation (from 2014 to 2020) among physician editors of 35 pathology journals using publicly available data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database.

RESULTS

Of the physician editors included, 135 (69.9%) were men and 58 (30.1%) were women. Similar percentages of men and women physicians who were eligible received payments (112/135 [83.0%] men and 51/58 [87.9%] women; P = .38, χ2 test). Of the total transfer of value ($211,192,532), 112 men received $192,727,555 (91.3%), and 51 women received $18,464,978 (8.7%). Mean total payment per person was $1,720,782 for men and $362,058 for women (P = .05). The payment range for men was $18-$47,568,400 and the range of payments for women was $31-$2,375,637.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings highlight significant gender inequities in industry-related payments to physician editors of pathology journals. The financial relationships of journal editors and industry deserve further study, particularly as they relate to advancing science and closing both workforce and patient care inequities.

Assessment of Conflicts of Interest in Studies of Breast Implants and Breast Implant Mesh

BACKGROUND

With increased collaboration between surgeons and industry, there has been a push towards improving transparency of conflicts of interest (COI).

METHODS

A literature search identified all articles published between 2016 - 2018 involving breast implants/implantable mesh from three major United States plastic surgery journals. Industry payment data from 8 breast implant/implantable mesh companies was collected using the CMS Open Payments database. COI discrepancies were identified by comparing author declaration statements with payments >$100.00 found for the year of publication and year prior. Risk factors for discrepancy were determined at study and author levels.

RESULTS

A total of 162 studies (548 authors) were identified. 126 (78%) studies had at least one author receive undisclosed payments. 295 (54%) authors received undisclosed payments. Comparative studies were significantly more likely to have COI discrepancy than non- comparative studies (83% vs 69%, p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed no association between COI discrepancy and final product recommendation. Authors who accurately disclosed payments received higher payments compared to authors who did not accurately disclose payments (median $40,349 IQR 7278-190,413 vs median $1300 IQR 429-11,1544, p <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of breast implant-based studies had undisclosed COIs. Comparative studies were more likely to have COI discrepancy. Authors who accurately disclosed COIs received higher payments than authors with discrepancies. This study highlights the need for increased efforts to improve the transparency of industry sponsorship for breast implant-based studies.