RESUMEN
STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the rate of accurate conflict of interest (COI) disclosure within three prominent subspecialty Spine journals during a 4-year period. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Industry-physician relationships are crucial for technological advancement in spine surgery but serve as a source of bias in biomedical research. The Open Payments Database (OPD) was established after 2010 to increase financial transparency. METHODS: All research articles published from 2014 to 2017 in Spine, The Spine Journal (TSJ), and the Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine (JNS) were reviewed in this study. In these articles, all author's COI statements were recorded. The OPD was queried for all author entries within the disclose period of the journal. Discrepancies between the author's self-reported COIs and the documented COIs from OPD were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 6816 articles meeting inclusion criteria between 2014 and 2017 in Spine, TSJ, and JNS with 39,869 contributing authors. Overall, 15.8% of all authors were found to have an OPD financial relationship. Of 2633 authors in Spine with financial disclosures, 77.1% had accurate financial disclosures; 42.5% and 41.0% of authors with financial relationships in the OPD had accurate financial disclosures in TSJ and JNS, respectively. The total value of undisclosed conflicts of interest between 2014 and 2017 was $421 million with $1.48 billion in accurate disclosures. Of undisclosed payments, 68.7% were <$1000 and only 7.2% were >$10,000. Undisclosed payments included $180 million in research funding and $188 million in royalties. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that undisclosed COI is highly prevalent for authors in major Spine journals. This study indicates that there remains a need to standardize definitions and financial thresholds for significant COI as well as to shift the reporting burden for COI to journals who actively review potential COIs instead of relying on self-reporting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
Asunto(s)
Conflicto de Intereses , Revelación/normas , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/normas , Médicos/normas , Enfermedades de la Columna Vertebral , Investigación Biomédica/economía , Investigación Biomédica/normas , Estudios de Cohortes , Conflicto de Intereses/economía , Bases de Datos Factuales/normas , Humanos , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/economía , Médicos/economía , Autoinforme/economía , Autoinforme/normas , Enfermedades de la Columna Vertebral/economía , Enfermedades de la Columna Vertebral/cirugíaRESUMEN
Musculoskeletal injuries are among the most prevalent, disabling, and costly conditions that Americans face, affecting over half of those over 18 and nearly 75% of those over 65 years old. Current treatments are largely palliative for many of these conditions and unmet needs have warranted the emergence of alternative treatments. Orthobiologics, such as adipose tissue derivatives (ATDs), are of high interest because they can be obtained in the office setting and their cellular components, including adipose stem cells and stromal cells, are thought to be beneficial in the treatment of musculoskeletal injuries. Microfragmented adipose tissue (MFAT) and stromal vascular fraction (SVF) are two ATD injectates that are used in the clinical setting to treat musculoskeletal conditions. Our review aimed to clarify the terminology describing the various ATDs used for orthopedic indications while discussing the promising but low-quality evidence, heterogeneity in MFAT and SVF processing methods, and inconsistencies in reported information such as injectate characterization with cell counts, injection technique, and postprocedural rehabilitation.