I also think the quotations around 'research' are a clear indication of the biases here - this is literally research funding that wasn't paid to the individual! You may not like pharma funding, but implying that this money wasn't used for research is...problematic
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @MaartenvSmeden and
That's an important point, but now that I looked a bit harder, the main driver of this was the big sale of a company. As
@mikejohansenmd says, you always gotta check the supplementary appendix:pic.twitter.com/gAI3Rvzc2I
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @ADAlthousePhD @GidMK and
It is pretty funny to see that the blog post heavily implies that "each" editor is on the take for these massive sums when the truth is most of them got a few thousand and the one big lump sum accounting for 2/3 of the money was proceeds from the sale of a company.
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @ADAlthousePhD @MaartenvSmeden and
Yeh I think looking at the overall table here from the BMJ paper is quite elucidating. Median of $0 for about 50% of all editors means that 50%+ of journal editors receive NO pharma money. Median for almost every specialty is below 1,000pic.twitter.com/VHtemP5c1h
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @ADAlthousePhD and
In fact, if you read the results vs conclusion of the BMJ study, I think they've wildly mischaracterized the evidence here - most editors receive no/almost no payments, but the means are skewed upwards by a scant few who get paid a lotpic.twitter.com/RAmwNIwBvJ
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @ADAlthousePhD and
I'm not sure how you can find that the majority of journal editors receive $0 of pharma money, and >75% get less than $3,000, and then say that industry payments are "common and often large"
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @ADAlthousePhD and
I also think that these numbers are themselves skewed substantially. For example, the study reports that the median of endocrinology payments is $7,207, but this is only true if you exclude all non-eligible journal editors. For endo, that makes up 11/35 excluded!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @ADAlthousePhD and
These people are excluded because they are not eligible for Open Payments reporting, which for some is because they are overseas, but for others is because they are not clinical. That's a pretty enormous issue, because you can't reasonably exclude everyone
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @ADAlthousePhD and
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @ADAlthousePhD and
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
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
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
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.