Just for posterity: the numbers for "JACC" in that Table are technically correct but wildly misleading. One person that started a company and received 10.9 million from the sale of the company (https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/ethics/52731 …)
If you were to include the people for whom Open Payments data was not available as $0 instead, the median for endocrinology drops to $0, with 60% of all editors getting <$150 from pharma
-
-
Furthermore, I think that lumping everything under a 'general' category is willfully misleading. Many of these payments are very small ($37?) and so almost certainly reimbursement for costs rather than any actual incentive. The fact that this is ignored by the paper isn't great
-
Even with some of the larger payments, lumping it all in together is a problem. Payments of $500-2,000 could easily be primarily reimbursements for flights and the like, but are here reported as some sort of nefarious double-dealing
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.