Hidden influence? Unmasking conflicts of interest from randomized clinical trials on spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain
Authors' conclusion
A substantial majority of RCTs reported COIs with many authors having undisclosed conflicts, highlighting the need for stringent COI disclosure guidelines to maintain research integrity.
Study context
- Population
- Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain published January 1, 2013 to July 27, 2023RCTs
- Participants
- 38 rcts
- Outcome
- Presence, disclosure and monetary value of conflicts of interest (COIs)
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
- RCTs reporting conflicts of interest (COIs)
- 30 (78.9%)
- Authors per RCT with ≥1 COI (average)
- 35.6%
- Mean COIs per author
- 0.7
- Mean annual monetary value of COIs per author per RCT
- US$41,157.83
- RCTs with undisclosed COIs
- 29 (76.3%)
- Authors per RCT with undisclosed COIs (average)
- 24.2%
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Secondary outcomes
Sponsor access to data
- RCTs reporting sponsor access to data
- 67.6%
Associations of COIs with impact factor, publication year and study outcomes
- No associations between mean % of authors with COIs or monetary value of COIs and impact factor, publication year or study outcomes
Original publication
Hidden influence? Unmasking conflicts of interest from randomized clinical trials on spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain. Reg Anesth Pain Med. Published 7 October 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →