Study Reveals Abstracts with Financial Conflicts of Interest Have Higher Meeting Prominence, Better Peer Review Score
Beverly Moy, MD, Clinical Director of the Breast Oncology Program at Massachusetts General Hospital, and colleagues recently analyzed the relationship between declaration of financial conflicts of interest and "research prominence" for abstracts presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meetings. Their findings, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, revealed that the percentage of abstracts with at least one author declaring financial conflicts of interest has increased over time and that such abstracts have a high meeting prominence and receive better peer review scores.
Study Details
The investigators analyzed 20,718 abstracts presented at ASCO Annual Meetings in 2006 and 2008 to 2011 for declared financial relationships, peer review score, and meeting placement prominence. For placement prominence, plenary sessions were considered the most prominent followed by, in descending order, clinical science symposium, oral presentation, poster discussion, general poster, and publish-only placement.
Peer review score was determined by two members of ASCO’s Scientific Review Committee who each independently assigned a score of 1 to 5 (the lower the score, the more meritorious). Peer reviewers were not co-investigators of their assigned abstracts and were not blinded to abstract authorship, institutions, research sponsors, or disclosed financial conflicts of interest.
Increase in Conflicts of Interest over Time
Of 20,718 abstracts, 36% reported at least one author with a financial conflict of interest. The proportion of abstracts with any financial conflict of interest increased from 33% in 2006 to 38% in 2011 (P < .001). Any financial relationship and all specific categories of relationships (employment, stock, consultant, honoraria, research funding, expert witness) were significantly more prevalent among abstracts accepted for presentation compared with those accepted for publication only (P < .001). There were significant increases over time in the proportion of abstracts reporting financial conflicts of interest of any relationship (P < .011) and research funding (P = .011). Among the abstracts accepted for presentation (n = 12,058), those with authors disclosing any financial relationship increased from 39% in 2006 to 47% in 2011 (P < .001).
Effect on Meeting Prominence
Abstracts with financial conflicts of interest had significantly higher meeting prominence compared with publish-only and general poster abstracts. The odds ratios compared with general posters were 7.3 for plenary session, 2.2 for clinical science symposium, 1.9 for oral presentation, and 1.7 for poster discussion (P ≤ .001 for all).
Abstracts with financial conflicts of interest had significantly better peer review scores compared with those without financial conflicts of interest. For all abstracts, mean scores were 2.76 for those with financial conflicts of interest and 3.01 for those without financial conflicts of interest (P < .001). When publish-only abstracts were not included in the analysis, scores were 2.62 and 2.73 (P < .001), respectively.
The investigators concluded: “Abstracts with financial conflicts of interest had more prominent meeting placement and better peer review scores. Financial conflicts of interest were reported more frequently by year, suggesting an increasing influence of industry on cancer research, greater disclosure, or both.”
The content in this post has not been reviewed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Inc. (ASCO®) and does not necessarily reflect the ideas and opinions of ASCO®.
