The “throwaways”. Conflicts of interest in dermatology publications

Abstract

AbstractImportanceConflict of interest as it relates to medical education is a topic of concern. Dermatology journals, periodicals, editorials, and news magazines are influential resources that are not uniformly regulated and subject to influence from the pharmaceutical industry.ObjectiveThis study evaluates industry payments to physician editorial board members of common dermatology publications, including “throwaway” publications.DesignA list of editorial board members was compiled from a collection of clinical dermatology publications received over a 3-month period. To analyze the nature and extent of industry payments to this cohort, payments data from the Open Payments database from 2013 to 2019 were collected. Analysis of the total payments, number of transactions, categories of payments, payment sources, and physician specific characteristics was performed.ResultsTen publications were evaluated, and payments data for 466 physicians were analyzed. The total compensation across all years was $75,622,369.64. Services other than consulting, consulting, and travel/lodging payments comprised most of the payments. A faction of dermatologists received the majority of payments. The top payers were manufacturers of biologic medications. Payment amounts were higher for throwaway publications compared to peer-reviewed journals.ConclusionsEditorial board members of dermatology publications received substantial payments from the pharmaceutical industry. A minority of physicians receive the lion’s share of payments from industry. “Throwaway” publications have more financial conflict of interest than peer-reviewed journals. The impact of these conflicts of interest on patient care, physicians practice patterns, and patient perception of physicians is noteworthy.