Search

Sharing research data has great potential to benefit science and society. However, data sharing is still not common practice. Since public research funding agencies have a particular impact on research and researchers, the question arises: Are public funding agencies morally obligated to promote data sharing? We argue from a research ethics perspective that public funding agencies have several pro tanto obligations requiring them to promote data sharing. However, there are also pro tanto obligations that speak against promoting data sharing in general as well as with regard to particular instruments of such promotion. We examine and weigh these obligations and conclude that all things considered funders ought to promote the sharing of data. Even the instrument of mandatory data sharing policies can be justified under certain conditions., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The article argues the thesis that institutions have a prima facie obligation to fund the feedback of individual findings in genomic research conducted on the African continent by drawing arguments from an underexplored Afro-communitarian view of distributive justice and rights of researchers to be aided. Whilst some studies have explored how institutions have a duty to support return as a form of ancillary care or additional foreseeable service in research by mostly appealing to dominant principles and theories in the Global North, this mostly normative study explores this question by appealing to underexplored African philosophy. This is a new way of thinking about institutional responsibility to fund feedback and responds to the call to decolonise health research in Africa. Further studies are required to study how this prima facie obligation will interact with social contexts and an institution's extant relationships to find an actual duty. The research community should also work out procedures, policies and governance structures to facilitate feedback. In our opinion, though the impacts of feeding back can inform how institutions think about their actual duty, these do not obliterate the binding duty to fund feedback., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Conflicts of interest (COIs) of contributors to a guideline project and the funding of that project can influence the development of the guideline. Comprehensive reporting of information on COIs and funding is essential for the transparency and credibility of guidelines., Objective: To develop an extension of the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) statement for the reporting of COIs and funding in policy documents of guideline organizations and in guidelines: the RIGHT-COI&F checklist., Design: The recommendations of the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network were followed. The process consisted of registration of the project and setting up working groups, generation of the initial list of items, achieving consensus on the items, and formulating and testing the final checklist., Setting: International collaboration., Participants: 44 experts., Measurements: Consensus on checklist items., Results: The checklist contains 27 items: 18 about the COIs of contributors and 9 about the funding of the guideline project. Of the 27 items, 16 are labeled as policy related because they address the reporting of COI and funding policies that apply across an organization's guideline projects. These items should be described ideally in the organization's policy documents, otherwise in the specific guideline. The remaining 11 items are labeled as implementation related and they address the reporting of COIs and funding of the specific guideline., Limitation: The RIGHT-COI&F checklist requires testing in real-life use., Conclusion: The RIGHT-COI&F checklist can be used to guide the reporting of COIs and funding in guideline development and to assess the completeness of reporting in published guidelines and policy documents., Primary Funding Source: The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M23-3274.

Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Grant in this issue.

Since the last assessment of conflicts of interest (COIs) in dermatology randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 2004, several countries have introduced transparency databases. We assessed the prevalence of financial COIs in dermatology RCTs and quantified payments from study sponsors to academic/clinical authors using transparency databases, which are available in the USA, France, Australia, Belgium and the Netherlands, while the UK has a noncompulsory transparency database. We included RCTs from the top 10 dermatology journals and the top 7 general medical journals published in 2019. The study assessed 83 RCTs, and COIs were identified in 69%. The highest prevalence was in exclusively industry-funded trials (46/47, 98%), which consisted of personal payments to an academic/clinical author (96% of trials) and having authors who were employees/stockholders (96%). Payments were identified for 31/56 (55%) academic/clinical first/final authors (median payment US$28 746, maximum US$597 299, interquartile range US$17 061-146 253), and 24/31 payments (77%) payments were each > US$10 000., (© 2021 The Authors. Clinical and Experimental Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare the following: JL received payment for writing a brief in an action for side effects of a drug for Michael F Smith, lawyer and a second brief on the role of promotion in generating prescriptions for Goodmans LLP. He is a member of the foundation board of Health Action International. LAB is senior editor for research integrity, Cochrane, for which the University of Colorado receives remuneration. CD is an alternate member representing Health Action International on the European Medicines Agency’s patients and consumers working party. MAG reports serving as an expert witness on behalf of Justice Canada in a case about the constitutionality of patented drug price regulation. Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

The development of medicines for certain rare diseases can be frustrated by lack of funding. In certain cases the patients themselves, or their relatives, occasionally fund the clinical trial in which they will be treated with the investigational medicine. There are 3models of self-funded research: 2of them, "pay to try" and "pay to participate", have already been put into practice. The third, the "plutocratic" proposal, which has been recently put forward is still a theoretical model. In this work the scientific, social and ethical benefits and risks of the 2clinical research models, "pay to participate" and the "plutocratic" proposal, are reviewed. Patient-funded clinical trials are frequently performed through crowdfunding. The most controversial aspects of this funding modality are also addressed in this article from several perspectives. Finally, a future scenario that would allow the launching of self-funded clinical trials in Spain by the "plutocratic" proposal is proposed., (Copyright © 2020 Asociación Española de Pediatría. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors are members of the TACIT steering group. We declare that we have no other competing interests.

Objective: There are concerns that some non-profit organisations, financed by the food industry, promote industry positions in research and policy materials. Using Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, we test the proposition that the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), one prominent non-for profit in international health and nutrition research, promotes industry positions., Design: U.S. Right to Know filed five FOI from 2015 to 2018 covering communications with researchers at four US institutions: Texas A&M, University of Illinois, University of Colorado and North Carolina State University. It received 15 078 pages, which were uploaded to the University of California San Francisco's Industry Documents Library. We searched the Library exploring it thematically for instances of: (1) funding research activity that supports industry interests; (2) publishing and promoting industry-sponsored positions or literature; (3) disseminating favourable material to decision makers and the public and (4) suppressing views that do not support industry., Results: Available emails confirmed that ILSI's funding by corporate entities leads to industry influence over some of ILSI activities. Emails reveal a pattern of activity in which ILSI sought to exploit the credibility of scientists and academics to bolster industry positions and promote industry-devised content in its meetings, journal and other activities. ILSI also actively seeks to marginalise unfavourable positions., Conclusions: We conclude that undue influence of industry through third-party entities like ILSI requires enhanced management of conflicts of interest by researchers. We call for ILSI to be recognised as a private sector entity rather than an independent scientific non-profit, to allow for more appropriate appraisal of its outputs and those it funds.

Physicians in training and their mentors must be cognizant of ethical concerns related to industry interactions. Mentors perceived to have conflicts of interest or to be engaging in misconduct can unconsciously and profoundly affect the learning and academic environment by implying certain values and expectations. Despite increased awareness of ethical concerns related to industry interactions in clinical practice and research, there remains a need for interventions to prevent ethical transgressions. Ethics education is essential and a move in the right direction, but it alone is likely inadequate in preventing unethical behavior. Education should be supplemented with ethical environments at institutions., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The Belmont Report has provided a useful and virtually universal framework for protecting human subjects from research abuses. However, it provides little to no guidance on the substance of human research. In an environment where major decisions concerning health-care access, funding, and regulation hinge on human research, this omission leaves downstream users of human research virtually unprotected and with few tools or frameworks to protect against a variety of practices that compromise the social value of human research. This essay advocates for the addition of a fourth principle to the Belmont three: "scientific integrity." Such a principle would seek to train human research on important social objectives while maximizing the accessibility, credibility, and generalizability of findings.

Financial relationships in academic research can create institutional conflicts of interest (COIs) because the financial interests of the institution or institutional officials may inappropriately influence decision-making. Strategies for dealing with institutional COIs include establishing institutional COI committees that involve the board of trustees in conflict review and management, developing policies that shield institutional decisions from inappropriate influences, and establishing private foundations that are independent of the institution to own stock and intellectual property and to provide capital to start-up companies.

Background: Most studies are inclined to report positive rather than negative or inconclusive results. It is currently unknown how clinicians appraise the results of a randomized clinical trial. For example, how does the study funding source influence the appraisal of an RCT, and do positive findings influence perceived credibility and clinical relevance? This study investigates whether psychiatrists' appraisal of a scientific abstract is influenced by industry funding disclosures and a positive outcome., Methods: Dutch psychiatrists were randomized to evaluate a scientific abstract describing a fictitious RCT for a novel antipsychotic drug. Four different abstracts were created reporting either absence or presence of industry funding disclosure as well as a positive or a negative outcome. Primary outcomes were the perceived credibility and clinical relevance of the study results (10-point Likert scale). Secondary outcomes were the assessment of methodological quality and interest in reading the full article., Results: Three hundred ninety-five psychiatrists completed the survey (completion rate 45%). Industry funding disclosure was found not to influence perceived credibility (Mean Difference MD 0.12; 95% CI - 0.28 to 0.47, p?) nor interpretation of its clinical relevance (MD 0.14; 95% CI - 0.54 to 0.27, p?). A negative outcome was perceived as more credible than a positive outcome (MD 0.81 points; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.18, p?), but did not affect clinical relevance scores (MD -0.14; 95% CI - 0.54 to 0.27)., Conclusions: In this study, industry funding disclosure was not associated with the perceived credibility nor judgement of clinical relevance of a fictional RCT by psychiatrists. Positive study outcomes were found to be less credible compared to negative outcomes, but industry funding had no significant effects. Psychiatrists may underestimate the influence of funding sources on research results. The fact that physicians indicated negative outcomes to be more credible may point to more awareness of existing publication bias in the scientific literature.

Purpose: Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has gained popularity over the last decade claiming enhanced surgical precision and better joint kinematics, with peer-reviewed publications about this new technology also increasing over the past few years. The purpose of our study was to compare manuscripts about robotic-assisted UKA to those about standard UKA in terms of industry funding, author conflict of interest, scientific quality, and bibliometrics., Methods: A systematic search using PRISMA guidelines on PubMed and Google Scholar from 2012 to 2016 resulted in 45 papers where robotic technology was performed for UKA and 167 papers that UKA were performed without the assistance of a robot. Between the two groups, we compared (1) rate of manuscripts with reported conflict of interest or industry funding, (2) journal impact factor, (3) level of evidence, and (4) relative citation ratio., Results: Fifty-one percent (23/45) of robotic UKA manuscripts were industry-funded or had authors with financial conflict of interest, compared to 29% ([49/167], p < 0.01) of non-robotic UKA papers. Significantly more robotic UKA papers (24% [11/45] vs 9% [16/167), p < 0.01) were published in journals that were not assigned an impact factor by the Journal Citations Report. There was no difference in regard to bibliometrics or level of evidence., Conclusion: Manuscripts in which UKA was performed with the assistance of a robot were more likely to be industry funded or be written by authors with financial conflicts of interest and published in less prestigious journals. There were no differences in scientific quality or influence between the two groups. Readers analyzing published data should be aware of the potential conflicts of interests in order to more accurately interpret manuscripts data and conclusions.

Medical crowdfunding has become a popular choice worldwide for people with unaffordable health needs. In low-income and middle-income countries with limited social welfare arrangements and a high incidence of catastrophic health spending, the market for medical crowdfunding is booming. However, relevant research was conducted exclusively in North America and Europe; little is known about medical crowdfunding activities inother contexts. As a first step towards filling this knowledge gap, this study depicts the realities of medical crowdfunding in a middle-income country China through empirical investigation and ethical analysis. We examine 100 randomly selected medical campaigns from a major Chinese crowdfunding platform and analyse the relevance of the previously identified ethical concerns to the Chinese context. The empirical findings show that Chinese campaigns have low and uneven success rates, require legally the participation of charitable organisations and focus on financial distress and family values in appealing for donations. In addition, the ethical analysis suggests that medical crowdfunding in China shares several ethical concerns raised in developed countries such as the veracity of claims and privacy violation. More importantly, our research reveals the inadequacy of current evidence and the lack of indicators to evaluate ethical issues in practice. Additional research is needed to better understand this fundraising practice across different social and cultural contexts., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To examine the prevalence, types and temporal trends of reported financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) among authors of drug therapy randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for RA and their association with study outcomes., Methods: We identified original, non-phase 1, parallel-group, drug therapy RA RCTs published in the years 2002-03, 2006-07, and 2010-11. Two investigators independently obtained trial characteristics data. Authors' FCOIs were classified as honoraria/consultation fees receipt, employee status, research grant, and stock ownership. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify whether FCOIs were independently associated with study outcome., Results: A total of 146 eligible RCTs were identified. Of these, 83 (58.4%) RCTs had at least one author with an FCOI [employee status: 63 (43.2%), honoraria/consultation fees receipt: 49 (33.6%), research grant: 30 (20.5%), and stock ownership: 28 (19.2%)]. A remarkable temporal increase in reporting of honoraria/consultation fees receipt, research grant, and stock ownership was seen. The reporting of any FCOI itself was not associated with positive outcome [50/73 (68.5%) with author FCOI vs 36/52 (69.2%) without author FCOI, P = 0.93]. However, honoraria/consulting fees receipt was independently associated with increased likelihood of a positive outcome [adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) of 3.24 (1.06-9.88)]. In general, trials with FCOIs were significantly more likely to be multicentre, have larger enrolment, use biologic or a small molecule as the experimental intervention, and have better reporting of some methodological quality measures., Conclusion: FCOI reporting in RA drug RCT authors is common and temporally increasing. Receipt of honoraria/consulting fees was independently associated with a positive study outcome., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology 2018. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.)

Objective: To quantify the influence of financial conflict of interest (COI) payments on the reporting of clinical results for robotic surgery., Data Sources and Study Selection: A systematic search (Ovid MEDLINE databases) was conducted (May 2017) to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the efficacy of the da Vinci robot on clinical outcomes. Financial COI data for authors (per study) were determined using open payments database., Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes assessed were receipt of financial COI payments and overall conclusion reported between robotic versus comparative approach. Quality/risk of bias was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS)/Cochrane risk of bias tool. Disclosure discrepancies were also analyzed., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Study characteristics, surgical subspecialty, methodological assessment, reporting of disclosure statements, and study findings dual abstracted. The association of the amount of financial support received as a predictor of reporting positive findings associated robotic surgery was assessed at various cut-offs of dollar amount received by receiver operating curve (ROC)., Results: Thirty-three studies were included, 9 RCTs and 24 observational studies. There was a median, 111 patients (range 10 to 6420) across studies. A little more than half (17/33) had a conclusion statement reporting positive results in support of robotic surgery, with 48% (16/33) reporting results not in favor [equivocal: 12/33 (36%), negative: 4/33 (12%)]. Nearly all (91%) studies had authors who received financial COI payments, with a median of $3364.46 per study (range $9 to $1,775,378.03). ROC curve demonstrated that studies receiving greater than $9557.31 (cutpoint) were more likely to report positive robotic surgery results (sensitivity: 0.65, specificity: 0.81, area under the curve: 0.73). Studies with financial COI payment greater than this amount were more likely to report beneficial outcomes with robotic surgery [(78.57% vs 31.58%, P = 0.013) with an odds ratio of 2.07 (confidence interval: 0.47-3.67; P = 0.011)]. Overall, studies were high quality/low risk of bias [median NOS: 8 (range 5 to 9)]; Cochrane risk: "low risk" (9/9, 100%)]., Conclusion and Relevance: Financial COI sponsorship appears to be associated with a higher likelihood of studies reporting a benefit of robotic surgery. Our findings suggest a dollar amount where financial payments influence reported clinical results, a concept that challenges the current guidelines, which do not account for the amount of COI funding received.

Several investigations have found that industry-funded studies tend to inform results favoring the sponsored products. The pressure to demonstrate that a drug or a product causes a favorable outcome may result in investigation biases from industry-funded research. One example of this could be found in the probiotic research funded by the industry. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of industry funding on positive outcomes of the use of probiotics in the management of acute diarrhea. A systematized review of clinical trials on the use of probiotics in the management of acute diarrhea was performed. The associations between the source of funding, clinical outcomes, probiotic genus, and quality of the study were assessed using the χ-test and Fisher's exact test. Sixty-six clinical trials were included; 27 were industry funded, 18 were nonindustry funded, and 21 did not disclose their funding source. There were 48 positive and 30 negative clinical outcomes. There was no significant association between the source of funding and clinical outcomes (P=0.491). No association between the rest of the studied variables and outcomes was observed either (P>0.05). In clinical trials on the use of probiotics in the management of acute diarrhea, the source of funding has no influence on positive clinical outcomes.

Donor-funded research is research funded by private donors in exchange for research-related benefits, such as trial participation or access to the trial intervention. This has been pejoratively referred to as 'pay to play' research, and criticised as unethical. We outline three models of donor-funded research, and argue for their permissibility on the grounds of personal liberty, their capacity to facilitate otherwise unfunded health research and their consistency with current ethical standards for research. We defend this argument against objections that donor-funded research is wrongly exploitative, unfair and undermines the public good of medical research. Our conclusion is that, like all human subjects research, donor-funded research should be regulated via standard health research legislation/guidelines and undergo Research Ethics Committee/Institutional Review Board and scientific peer-review. We expect that, measured against these standards, some donor-funded research would be acceptable., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Research funders from high-income countries have an ethical obligation to support health research in low and middle-income countries that promotes justice in global health. Conceptual work from bioethics proposes funders should do so through their design of grants programs, investments, and grants management. That work has begun to specify the content of funders' ethical responsibility with regards to health systems research, but it has thus far not been informed by their practice. As a first step to bridge that gap, this paper focuses on health systems research funders' design of grants programs. It aims to test the content of funders' proposed ethical responsibility against recent empirical work describing how they design their health systems research grants programs to help address global health disparities. Based on that analysis, recommendations are made for how to better articulate the content of health systems research funders' obligation. Such recommendations may be pertinent to funders of other types of international research. The paper also provides an initial picture of how well health systems research grants programs' designs may align with the ideals of global health justice.

Background: Accurate conflict of interest (COI) statements are important, as a known COI may invalidate study results due to the potential risk of bias., Objective: To determine the accuracy of self-declared COI statements in robotic studies and identify risk factors for undeclared payments., Methods: Robotic surgery studies were identified through EMBASE and MEDLINE and included if published in 2015 and had at least one American author. Undeclared COI were determined by comparing the author's declared COI with industry reported payments found in the "Open Payments" database for 2013 and 2014. Undeclared payments and discrepancies in the COI statement were determined. Risk factors were assessed for an association with undeclared payments at the author and study level., Results: A total of 458 studies (2253 authors) were included. Approximately, 240 (52%) studies had 1 or more author receive undeclared payments and included 183 where "no COI" was explicitly declared, and 57 with no declaration statement present. Moreover, 21% of studies and 18% of authors with a COI declared it so in a COI statement. Studies that had undeclared payments from Intuitive were more likely to recommend robotic surgery compared with those that declared funding (odds ratio 4.29, 95% confidence interval 2.55-7.21)., Conclusions: We found that it was common for payments from Intuitive to be undeclared in robotic surgery articles. Mechanisms for accountability in COI reporting need to be put into place by journals to achieve appropriate transparency to those reading the journal article.

There are many difficulties in undertaking independent clinical research without support from the pharmaceutical industry. In this retrospective observational study, some design characteristics, the clinical trial public register and the publication rate of noncommercial clinical trials were compared to those of commercial clinical trials. A total of 809 applications of drug-evaluation clinical trials were submitted from May 2004 to May 2009 to the research ethics committee of a tertiary hospital, and 16.3% of trials were noncommercial. They were mainly phase IV, multicentre national, and unmasked controlled trials, compared to the commercial trials that were mainly phase II or III, multicentre international, and double-blind masked trials. The commercial trials were registered and published more often than noncommercial trials. More funding for noncommercial research is still needed. The results of the research, commercial or noncommercial, should be disseminated in order not to compromise either its scientific or its social value., (© 2018 The British Pharmacological Society.)

Informed consent requirements for medical research have expanded over the past half-century. The Declaration of Helsinki now includes an explicit positive obligation to inform subjects about funding sources. This is problematic in a number of ways and seems to oblige researchers to disclose information irrelevant to most consent decisions. It is argued here that such a problematic obligation involves an "informational fallacy." The aim in the second part of the paper is to provide a better approach to making sense of how a failure to inform about funding sources wrongs subjects: by making appeals to obligations to refrain from misleading by omission. This alternative approach-grounded in a general obligation to refrain from misleading, an obligation that is independent of informed consent-provides a basis for a norm that protects subjects' interests, without the informational fallacy. The approach developed here avoids the problems identified with the currently specified general obligation to inform about funding sources., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy Inc. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Many potential therapeutic agents are discarded before they are tested in humans. These are not quack medications. They are drugs and other interventions that have been developed by responsible scientists in respectable companies or universities and are often backed up by publications in peer-reviewed journals. These possible treatments might ease suffering and prolong the lives of innumerable patients, yet they have been put aside. In this paper, we outline a novel mechanism-the Plutocratic Proposal-to revive such neglected research and fund early phase clinical trials. The central idea of the Proposal is that any patient who rescues a potential therapeutic agent from neglect by funding early phase clinical trials (either entirely or in large part) should be offered a place on the trial., Competing Interests: Competing interests: This paper was conceived and proposed by AM and DN who obtained a grant from VictoryNET, a trust set up by Vince Hamilton to fund research into and promote understanding of neuroendocrine cancer. The grant covered the costs (travel, research, time) while the authors worked on the paper. VictoryNET is not responsible for the content of the paper and has not sought to influence it., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Objective: Scientific research is essential to the development of effective addiction treatment and drug policy. Actions that compromise the integrity of addiction science need to be understood. The aim of this study is to investigate funder (e.g. industry, government or charity) interference in addiction science internationally., Method: Corresponding authors of all 941 papers published in an international specialist journal July 2004 to June 2009 were invited to complete a web questionnaire. A sensitivity analysis with extreme assumptions about non-respondents was undertaken., Results: The questionnaire was completed by 322 authors (response fraction 34%), 36% (n=117) of whom had encountered at least one episode (median=3, Interquartile range=4) of funder interference in their research: 56% in Australasia, 33% in Europe, and 30% in North America. Censorship of research outputs was the most common form of interference. The wording or writing of reports and articles, as well as where, when and how findings were released were the areas in which influence was most often reported., Conclusions: Funder interference in addiction science appears to be common internationally. Strategies to increase transparency in the addiction science literature, including mandatory author declarations concerning the role of the funder, are necessary., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Describe the prevalence and types of conflicts of interest (COI) in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in general medical journals with a binary primary outcome and assess the association between conflicts of interest and favorable outcome., Methods: Parallel-group RCTs with a binary primary outcome published in three general medical journals during 2013-2015 were identified. COI type, funding source, and outcome were extracted. Binomial logistic regression model was performed to assess association between COI and funding source with outcome., Results: A total of 509 consecutive parallel-group RCTs were included in the study. COI was reported in 74% in mixed funded RCTs and in 99% in for-profit funded RCTs. Stock ownership was reported in none of the non-profit RCTs, in 7% of mixed funded RCTs, and in 50% of for-profit funded RCTs. Mixed-funded RCTs had employees from the funding company in 11% and for-profit RCTs in 76%. Multivariable logistic regression revealed that stock ownership in the funding company among any of the authors was associated with a favorable outcome (odds ratio = 3.53; 95% confidence interval = 1.59-7.86; p < 0.01)., Conclusion: COI in for-profit funded RCTs is extensive, because the factors related to COI are not fully independent, a multivariable analysis should be cautiously interpreted. However, after multivariable adjustment only stock ownership from the funding company among authors is associated with a favorable outcome.

Purpose: We aim to assess any association between study and self-reported conflict of interest (COI) or trial sponsorship in breast cancer radiation clinical trials., Materials and Methods: We searched PubMed for all clinical trials (CTs) published between 09/2004 and 09/2014 related to breast cancer. We included only radiotherapy CTs with primary clinical endpoints. We classified eligible trials according to the funding source, presence or absence of conflict of interest, study conclusion and impact factor (IF)., Results: 1,603 CTs were retrieved. 72 randomized clinical trials were included for analysis. For-profit (PO), not for profit organization (nPO), none and not reported sponsorship rates were 9/72 (12.5%), 35/72 (48.6%), 1/72 (1.4%), 27/72 (37.5%), respectively. Present, absent or not reported COI were found in 6/72 (8.3%), 43/72 (59.7%) and 23/72 (32%) of the CTs, respectively. Conclusion was positive, neutral and negative in 57/72 (79.1%), 9/72 (12.5%) and 6/72 (8.4%) of the trials, respectively. Positive conclusion was reported in 33/44 (75%) funded trials (PO and nPO) and 5/6 (83.3%) CTs with reported COI. On univariate analysis no association with funding source (P=0.178), COI (P=0.678) or trial region (P=0.567) and trial positive conclusion was found. Sponsored trials (HR 4.50, 95CI-0.1.23-16.53;P=0.0023) and positive trials (HR 4.78, 95CI- 1.16-19.63;P=0.030) were more likely to be published in higher impact factor journals in the multivariate analysis., Conclusions: nPO funding was reported in almost 50% of the evaluated CTs. No significant association between study conclusion and funding source, COI or trial region was identified. Sponsored trials and positive trials were more likely to be published in higher impact factor journals., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Medical crowdfunding is growing in terms of the number of active campaigns, amount of funding raised and public visibility. Little is known about how campaigners appeal to potential donors outside of anecdotal evidence collected in news reports on specific medical crowdfunding campaigns. This paper offers a first step towards addressing this knowledge gap by examining medical crowdfunding campaigns for Canadian recipients. Using 80 medical crowdfunding campaigns for Canadian recipients, we analyse how Canadians justify to others that they ought to contribute to funding their health needs. We find the justifications campaigners tend to fall into three themes: personal connections, depth of need and giving back. We further discuss how these appeals can understood in terms of ethical justifications for giving and how these justifications should be assessed in light of the academic literature on ethical concerns raised by medical crowdfunding., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)