Conflicts of interest in electrophysiology and devices presentations.

AIMS: Industry collaboration with arrhythmia and devices research is common. However, this results in conflicts of interest (CoI) for researchers that should be disclosed. This study aimed to examine the quality of CoI disclosures in arrhythmia and devices presentations. METHODS: Recorded presentations from the Arrhythmia & Devices section of the ESC Annual Congress 2016-2020 were assessed. The number of words, conflicts, and time displayed was documented for CoI declarations. Meta-data including sponsorship by an industry partner, presenter sex, and institution were obtained. RESULTS: Of 1153 presentations assessed, 999 were suitable for inclusion. CoI statements were missing from 7.2% of presentations, and 58% reported ≥1 conflict. Those with conflicts spent less time-per-word on their disclosures (median 150 ms, interquartile range [IQR] 83-273 ms) compared with those without conflicts (median 250 ms, IQR 125-375 ms). One-in-eight presentations were sponsored (12.8%, n = 128). CoI statements were more likely to be missing in sponsored presentations (14.8%, n = 19) compared with non-sponsored presentations (6.1%, n = 53), P = 0.0003. Sponsored presentations contained a greater median number of CoIs (10, IQR 6-18) compared with non-sponsored sessions (1, IQR 0-5), P < 0.0001. Time-per-word spent on COI disclosures was 50% lower in sponsored sessions (125 ms, IQR 75-231 ms) compared with non-sponsored sessions (250 ms, IQR 125-375 ms), P < 0.0001. CONCLUSION: The majority of those presenting arrhythmia and devices research have CoIs to declare. Declarations were often missing or displayed for short periods of time. Presenters in sponsored sessions, while being more conflicted, had a lower standard of declaration suggesting a higher risk of potential bias which viewers had insufficient opportunity to assess.

The reporting quality of parallel randomised controlled trials in ophthalmic surgery in 2011: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) represent a gold standard for evaluating therapeutic interventions. However, poor reporting clarity can prevent readers from assessing potential bias that can arise from a lack of methodological rigour. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for non-pharmacological interventions 2008 (CONSORT NPT) was developed to aid reporting. RCTs in ophthalmic surgery pose particular challenges in study design and implementation. We aim to provide the first assessment of the compliance of RCTs in ophthalmic surgery to the CONSORT NPT statement. METHOD: In August 2012, the Medline database was searched for RCTs in ophthalmic surgery reported between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2011. Results were searched by two authors and relevant papers selected. Papers were scored against the 23-item CONSORT NPT checklist and compared against surrogate markers of paper quality. The CONSORT score was also compared between different RCT designs. RESULTS: In all, 186 papers were retrieved. Sixty-five RCTs, involving 5803 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The mean CONSORT score was 8.9 out of 23 (39%, range 3.0-14.7, SD 2.49). The least reported items related to the title and abstract (1.6%), reporting intervention adherence (3.1%), and interpretation of results (4.7%). No significant correlation was found between CONSORT score and journal impact factor (R=0.14, P=0.29), number of authors (R=0.01, P=0.93), or whether the RCT used paired-eye, one-eye, or two-eye designs in their randomisation (P=0.97). CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of RCTs in ophthalmic surgery is suboptimal. Further work is needed by trial groups, funding agencies, authors, and journals to improve reporting clarity.

Norman Barrett (1903-79): unorthodox pioneer of thoracic and oesophageal surgery.

It is an interesting quirk of medical history that the legacy of Norman Barrett most ostensibly lies in the name of a disease the he was quite emphatically wrong about, at least when he first described it. Indeed, there are those who argue to remove the eponym in favour of the title 'Columnar Lined Epithelium', in part because of what little Barrett actually had to do with the correct initial characterization of this disease. Yet the sum of Norman Barrett's contributions to modern medicine is much more than a mistaken characterization of a pathological process. Barrett was truly a pioneer of chest surgery in the UK - a specialty in its embryonic stages when he first qualified. He was also renowned as a teacher and academic of the highest calibre. In tracing the story of his life we can see how his natural attributes, life experiences and keen appreciation of the arts (especially history) facilitated personal success and such sharp insight into the vagaries of modern academic medicine.