World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 38, Issue 10, pp 2487–2493 | Cite as

Disclosure of Funding Sources and Conflicts of Interest in Phase III Surgical Trials: Survey of Ten General Surgery Journals

  • Valérie Bridoux
  • Grégoire Moutel
  • Lilian Schwarz
  • Francis Michot
  • Christian Herve
  • Jean-Jacques Tuech



Discussions regarding disclosure of funding sources and conflicts of interest (COI) in published peer-reviewed journal articles are becoming increasingly more common and intense. The aim of the present study was to examine whether randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in leading surgery journals report funding sources and COI.


All articles reporting randomized controlled phase III trials published January 2005 through December 2010 were chosen for review from ten international journals. We evaluated the number of disclosed funding sources and COI, and the factors associated with such disclosures.


From a review of 657 RCT from the ten journals, we discovered that presence or absence of a funding source and COI was disclosed by 47 % (309) and 25.1 % (165), respectively. Most articles in “International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)-affiliated journals” did not disclose COI. Disclosure of funding was associated with a journal impact factor >3 (51.7 vs 41.6 %; p < 0.01), statistician/epidemiologist involvement (64.2 vs 43.7 %; p < 0.001), publication after 2008 (52.9 vs 41.1 %; p < 0.01), and the journal being ICMJE-affiliated (49.3 vs 40 %; p < 0.05). Conflict of interest disclosure was associated with publication after 2008 (38.7 vs 11.3 %; p < 0.001), and with the journal not being affiliated with ICMJE (36.9 vs 21.3 %; p < 0.001).


Of the published studies we investigated, over half did not disclose funding sources (i.e., whether or not there was a funding source), and almost three quarters did not disclose whether COI existed. Our findings suggest the need to adopt best current practices regarding disclosure of competing interests to fulfill responsibilities to readers and, ultimately, to patients.


Funding Source Journal Impact Factor Disclosure Statement Study Sponsor Good Current Practice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We are grateful to Nikki Sabourin-Gibbs, Rouen University Hospital, for reviewing the manuscripts in English.


  1. 1.
    Thompson DF (1993) Understanding financial conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med 329:573–576PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mack MJ, Sade RM (2009) Relations between cardiothoracic surgeons and industry. Ann Thorac Surg 87:1334–1336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 289:454–465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bodenheimer T (2000) Uneasy alliance: clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. N Engl J Med 342:1539–1544PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF et al (2010) CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340:c869PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Drazen JM, Van der Weyden MB, Sahni P et al (2010) Uniform format for disclosure of competing interests in ICMJE journals. JAMA 303:75–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hussain A, Smith R (2001) Declaring financial competing interests: survey of five general medical journals. BMJ 323:263–264PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2012) Journals that have requested inclusion on the list of publications that follow the ICMJE’s Uniform Requirements For Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. Accessed 25 Jan 2012
  9. 9.
    Gayral F, Campion JP, Regimbeau JM et al (2009) Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of the efficacy of lanreotide 30 mg PR in the treatment of pancreatic and enterocutaneous fistulae. Ann Surg 250:872–877PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wassenaar E, Schoenmaeckers E, Raymakers J et al (2010) Mesh-fixation method and pain and quality of life after laparoscopic ventral or incisional hernia repair: a randomized trial of three fixation techniques. Surg Endosc 24:1296–1302PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yellin AE, Johnson J, Higareda I et al (2007) Ertapenem or ticarcillin/clavulanate for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections or acute pelvic infections in pediatric patients. Am J Surg 194:367–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Malangoni MA, Song J, Herrington J et al (2006) Randomized controlled trial of moxifloxacin compared with piperacillin–tazobactam and amoxicillin–clavulanate for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections. Ann Surg 244:204–211PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dellinger EP, Tellado JM, Soto NE et al (2007) Early antibiotic treatment for severe acute necrotizing pancreatitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Ann Surg 245:674–683PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Agnelli G, Bergqvist D, Cohen AT et al (2005) Randomized clinical trial of postoperative fondaparinux versus perioperative dalteparin for prevention of venous thromboembolism in high-risk abdominal surgery. Br J Surg 92:1212–1220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cookson R, Flood C, Koo B et al (2005) Short-term cost effectiveness and long-term cost analysis comparing laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication with proton-pump inhibitor maintenance for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Br J Surg 92:700–706PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chemla ES, Morsy M (2009) Randomized clinical trial comparing decellularized bovine ureter with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene for vascular access. Br J Surg 96:34–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lerut J, Mathys J, Verbaandert C et al (2008) Tacrolimus monotherapy in liver transplantation: one-year results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Ann Surg 248:956–967PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shantha Kumara HM, Kirman I, Feingold D et al (2009) Perioperative GMCSF limits the proangiogenic plasma protein changes associated with colorectal cancer resection. Eur J Surg Oncol 35:295–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Woodle ES, First MR, Pirsch J et al (2008) A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial comparing early (7 day) corticosteroid cessation versus long-term, low-dose corticosteroid therapy. Ann Surg 248:564–577PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gross CP, Gupta AR, Krumholz HM (2003) Disclosure of financial competing interests in randomised controlled trials: cross sectional review. BMJ 326(7388):526–527PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Riechelmann RP, Wang L, O’Carroll A et al (2007) Disclosure of conflicts of interest by authors of clinical trials and editorials in oncology. J Clin Oncol 25:4642–4647PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tuech JJ, Moutel G, Pessaux P et al (2005) Disclosure of competing financial interests and role of sponsors in phase III cancer trials. Eur J Cancer 41:2237–2240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C et al (2003) Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA 290:921–928PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chan AW, Altman DG (2005) Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet 365:1159–1162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Klitzman R, Chin LJ, Rifai-Bishjawish H et al (2010) Disclosures of funding sources and conflicts of interest in published HIV/AIDS research conducted in developing countries. J Med Ethics 36:505–510PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weinfurt KP, Seils DM, Tzeng JP et al (2008) Consistency of financial interest disclosures in the biomedical literature: the case of coronary stents. PLoS One 3:e2128PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chaudhry S, Schroter S, Smith R et al (2002) Does declaration of competing interests affect readers’ perceptions? A randomised trial. BMJ 325:1391–1392PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schroter S, Morris J, Chaudhry S et al (2004) Does the type of competing interest statement affect readers’ perceptions of the credibility of research? Randomised trial. BMJ 328:742–743PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kjaergard LL, Als-Nielsen B (2002) Association between competing interests and authors’ conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ. BMJ 325:249PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D et al (2004) Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. Can Med Assoc J 170:477–490Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Friedman LS, Richter ED (2004) Relationship between conflicts of interest and research results. J Gen Intern Med 19:51–56PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jagsi R, Sheets N, Jankovic A et al (2009) Frequency nature, effects, and correlates of conflicts of interest in published clinical cancer research. Cancer 115:2783–2791PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bero L, Oostvogel F, Bacchetti P et al (2007) Factors associated with findings of published trials of drug–drug comparisons: why some statins appear more efficacious than others. PLoS Med 4:e184PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sismondo S (2008) Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: a qualitative systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials 29:109–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B et al (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 326:1167–1170PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Clifford TJ, Barrowman NJ, Moher D (2002) Funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality: are they related? Results of a pilot study. BMC Health Serv Res 2:18PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stossel TP (2008) A biopsy of financial conflicts of interest in medicine. Surgery 143:193–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Duvall DG (2006) Conflict of interest or ideological divide: the need for ongoing collaboration between physicians and industry. Curr Med Res Opin 22:1807–1812PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Khan SN, Mermer M Myers E et al (2008) The roles of funding source, clinical trial outcome, and quality of reporting in orthopedic surgery literature. Am J Orthop 37:E205–12; discussion E12Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ross JS, Hill KP, Egilman DS et al (2008) Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib: a case study of industry documents from rofecoxib litigation. JAMA 299:1800–1812PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bhattacharyya N, Lin HW (2009) Prevalence and reliability of self-reported authorship disclosures in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 141:311–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Okike K, Kocher MS, Wei EX et al (2009) Accuracy of conflict-of-interest disclosures reported by physicians. N Engl J Med 361:1466–1474PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valérie Bridoux
    • 1
    • 2
  • Grégoire Moutel
    • 2
  • Lilian Schwarz
    • 1
  • Francis Michot
    • 1
  • Christian Herve
    • 2
  • Jean-Jacques Tuech
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Digestive SurgeryRouen University HospitalRouen CedexFrance
  2. 2.Laboratory of Medical EthicsParisFrance

Personalised recommendations