Abstract:

:Online medical reference websites are utilized by health care providers to enhance their education and decision making. However, these resources may not adequately reveal pharmaceutical-author interactions and their potential conflicts of interest (CoIs). This investigation: (1) evaluates the correspondence of two well-utilized CoI databases: the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments (CMSOP) and ProPublica's Dollars for Docs (PDD) and (2) quantifies CoIs among authors of a publicly available point of care clinical support website which is used to inform evidence-based medicine decisions. Two data sources were used: the hundred most common drugs and the top fifty causes of death. These topics were entered into a freely available database. The authors (N = 139) were then input into CMSOP and PDD and compensation and number of payments were determined for 2013-2015. The subset of highly compensated authors that also reported "Nothing to disclose" were further examined. There was a high degree of similarity between CMSOP and PDD for compensation (R2 ≥ 0.998) and payment number (R2 ≥ 0.992). The amount received was 1.4% higher in CMSOP ($4,059,194) than in PDD ($4,002,891). The articles where the authors had received the greatest compensation were in neurology (Parkinson's Disease = $1,810,032), oncology (Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia = $616,727), and endocrinology (Type I Diabetes = $377,388). Two authors reporting "Nothing to disclose" received appreciable and potentially relevant compensation. CMSOP and PDD produced almost identical results. CoIs were common among authors but self-reporting may be an inadequate reporting mechanism. Recommendations are offered for improving the CoI transparency of pharmaceutical-author interactions in point-of-care electronic resources.