↓ Skip to main content

Conflict of interest disclosure in biomedical research: a review of current practices, biases, and the role of public registries in improving transparency

Overview of attention for article published in Research Integrity and Peer Review, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
41 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Conflict of interest disclosure in biomedical research: a review of current practices, biases, and the role of public registries in improving transparency
Published in
Research Integrity and Peer Review, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s41073-016-0006-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam G. Dunn, Enrico Coiera, Kenneth D. Mandl, Florence T. Bourgeois

Abstract

Conflicts of interest held by researchers remain a focus of attention in clinical research. Biases related to these relationships have the potential to directly impact the quality of healthcare by influencing decision-making, yet conflicts of interest remain under-reported, inconsistently described, and difficult to access. Initiatives aimed at improving the disclosure of researcher conflicts of interest are still in their infancy but represent a vital reform that must be addressed before potential biases associated with conflicts of interest can be mitigated, and trust in the impartiality of clinical evidence restored. In this review, we examine the prevalence of conflicts of interest, evidence of the effects that disclosed and undisclosed conflicts of interest have had on the reporting of clinical evidence, and the emerging approaches for improving the completeness and consistency of disclosures. Through this review of emerging technologies, we recognize a growing interest in publicly-accessible registries for researcher conflicts of interest, and propose five desiderata aimed at maximizing the value of such registries: mandates for ensuring that researchers keep their records up to date; transparent records that are made available to the public; interoperability to allow researchers, bibliographic databases, and institutions to interact with the registry; a consistent taxonomy for describing different classes of conflicts of interest, and the ability to automatically generate conflicts of interest statements for use in published articles.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 19%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 11 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 8%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Philosophy 2 4%
Other 12 23%
Unknown 13 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. 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 25 September 2020.
All research outputs
#419,925
of 15,944,769 outputs
Outputs from Research Integrity and Peer Review
#22
of 90 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,385
of 265,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Integrity and Peer Review
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,944,769 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 90 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 265,588 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them