↓ Skip to main content

White paper: statement on conflicts of interest

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
12 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
Title
White paper: statement on conflicts of interest
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00134-018-5349-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julian Bion, Massimo Antonelli, LLuis Blanch, J. Randall Curtis, Christiane Druml, Bin Du, Flavia R. Machado, Charles Gomersall, Christiane Hartog, Mitchell Levy, John Myburgh, Gordon Rubenfeld, Charles Sprung

Abstract

Conflicts of interest are a normal part of human social intercourse. They become problematic when there is a power differential between participants in the setting of relationships requiring a high degree of trust, as in healthcare. In this white paper we consider how these conflicts may be detected and mitigated. Following Medline search and reference chaining, we undertook a narrative review of the literature with iterative discussion. Conflicts of interest may be financial, professional or personal, and may operate at the level of the individual or the organisation. Unmanaged, they become a source of bias which places the interests of the professional or the organisation before those of the patient. Reported with increasing frequency, conflicts damage trust, harm patients, and defraud the health system. We make 15 recommendations for minimising conflicts of interest. Nationally funded open-access registries should be established to permit complete disclosure of financial, professional, and personal relationships with the potential for driving bias in research, clinical practice, or health management. Governance of disclosure should be the responsibility of employing organisations through annual staff appraisals, audited by national research integrity committees. Research fraud should incur suspension of the license to practice. Organisations should monitor staff perceptions of ethical climate to enhance awareness of staff behaviours and the potential for misconduct driven by academic pressures. Clear separation of advisory and voting roles is needed in best practice guideline panels. Professional societies and scientific journals should display conflict of interest policies for their own staff and officers as well as for speakers and authors. Undergraduates should not be exposed to pharmaceutical promotions masquerading as education. Undergraduate and postgraduate training programmes should include teaching about managing conflicts of interest and identifying research misconduct.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Researcher 5 6%
Other 20 24%
Unknown 31 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 38 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 September 2019.
All research outputs
#1,795,095
of 23,342,092 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#1,426
of 5,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,395
of 336,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#32
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,092 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,059 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,761 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.