Proliferation of Gynaecological Scientific Societies and Their Financial Transparency: an Italian Survey

Overview

Journal BMJ Open

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2016 Jan 16

PMID 26769777

Citations 2

Authors

Paolo Vercellini

Paola Vigano

Maria Pina Frattaruolo

Edgardo Somigliana

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the number of Italian obstetrical and gynaecological societies, and to ascertain their financial transparency.

Design: Internet-based national survey and website content analysis.

Participants: Currently active, not privately owned, non-religious, apolitical, obstetrical and gynaecological associations.

Methods: From October 2014 to June 2015, scientific societies were identified using combinations of search terms, and examining the website of the two main Italian obstetrical and gynaecological organisations. Individual societies' websites were scrutinised by two independent investigators.

Primary And Secondary Outcome Measures: Number of Italian obstetrical and gynaecological associations and its variation over time; 12 information categories defining the general characteristics of the societies and their websites, and the financial transparency of the associations.

Results: The initial web search yielded 56 professional obstetrical and gynaecological associations but nine were excluded for various reasons. Of the remaining 47 professional associations, 17 covered both obstetrics and gynaecology, four were specialised in obstetrics, 26 in gynaecology and 46 provided continuing medical education (CME) activities. The number of societies has quadrupled in the last 35 years, increasing at a mean rate of one additional society per year. The headquarters of the associations were located in the offices of a professional congress organiser in 15 instances, and advertisements or links to industry products were present in 12 societies' websites. Bylaws were accessible in 32 websites. No information was publicly available regarding competing interests, financial statements and quantitative external funding.

Conclusions: The number of obstetrical and gynaecological societies is remarkably high in Italy, particularly in the gynaecological area. Despite CME activity provision, transparency of societies regarding financial issues and competing interests was almost non-existent. Policies addressing the interactions between medical associations and industry are available and should be implemented.

Citing Articles

The 2016 Lifetime Immunization Schedule, approved by the Italian scientific societies: A new paradigm to promote vaccination at all ages.

Bonanni P, Chiamenti G, Conforti G, Maio T, Odone A, Russo R Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2017; 13(11):2531-2537.

PMID: 29048980 PMC: 5703359. DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2017.1366394.

Conflict of interest between professional medical societies and industry: a cross-sectional study of Italian medical societies' websites.

Fabbri A, Gregoraci G, Tedesco D, Ferretti F, Gilardi F, Iemmi D BMJ Open. 2016; 6(6):e011124.

PMID: 27251686 PMC: 4893870. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011124.

References

Schwartz L, Woloshin S . Medical communication companies and continuing medical education: clouding the sunshine?. JAMA. 2013; 310(23):2507-8. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.281640. View

Moynihan R, Cooke G, Doust J, Bero L, Hill S, Glasziou P . Expanding disease definitions in guidelines and expert panel ties to industry: a cross-sectional study of common conditions in the United States. PLoS Med. 2013; 10(8):e1001500. PMC: 3742441. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001500. View

Steinbrook R . Future directions in industry funding of continuing medical education. Arch Intern Med. 2011; 171(3):257-8. DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.498. View

. American Society of Clinical Oncology: Policy for relationships with companies. J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31(16):2043-6. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2013.49.5002. View

. The role of industry interactions with the American College of Gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012; 107(6):800-3. DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2011.467. View

Hutchins J, Rydell C, Griggs R, Sagsveen M, Bernat J . American Academy of Neurology policy on pharmaceutical and device industry support. Neurology. 2012; 78(10):750-4. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318248e4ff. View

Brody H . Professional medical organizations and commercial conflicts of interest: ethical issues. Ann Fam Med. 2010; 8(4):354-8. PMC: 2906531. DOI: 10.1370/afm.1140. View

Ioannidis J . Are medical conferences useful? And for whom?. JAMA. 2012; 307(12):1257-8. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2012.360. View

Isaacs D . Industry sponsorship of scientific meetings: peaks and troughs. J Paediatr Child Health. 2012; 48(7):547. DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1754.2012.02492.x. View

10.

Minter R, Angelos P, Coimbra R, Dale P, de Vera M, Hardacre J . Ethical management of conflict of interest: proposed standards for academic surgical societies. J Am Coll Surg. 2011; 213(5):677-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.08.003. View

11.

Schunemann H, Osborne M, Moss J, Manthous C, Wagner G, Sicilian L . An official American Thoracic Society Policy statement: managing conflict of interest in professional societies. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009; 180(6):564-80. DOI: 10.1164/rccm.200901-0126ST. View

12.

Silverman E . Everything you need to know about the Sunshine Act. BMJ. 2013; 347:f4704. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f4704. View

13.

Lenzer J . Many US medical associations and disease awareness groups depend heavily on funding by drug manufacturers. BMJ. 2011; 342:d2929. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d2929. View

14.

Steinbrook R . Commercial support and continuing medical education. N Engl J Med. 2005; 352(6):534-5. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp048322. View

15.

Lo B, Ott C . What is the enemy in CME, conflicts of interest or bias?. JAMA. 2013; 310(10):1019-20. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.221227. View

16.

Rothman S, Brudney K, Adair W, Rothman D . Medical communication companies and industry grants. JAMA. 2013; 310(23):2554-8. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.281638. View

17.

Schatman M . The medical-industrial complex and conflict of interest in pain education. Pain Med. 2011; 12(12):1710-2. DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2011.01284.x. View

18.

Camilleri M, Parke 2nd D . Perspective: Conflict of interest and professional organizations: considerations and recommendations. Acad Med. 2010; 85(1):85-91. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181c46429. View

19.

Kassirer J . Professional societies and industry support: what is the quid pro quo?. Perspect Biol Med. 2007; 50(1):7-17. DOI: 10.1353/pbm.2007.0006. View

20.

Vercellini P, Vigano P, Somigliana E . Who pays for this conference? It's time patients and doctors knew. BMJ. 2014; 348:g3748. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g3748. View