Characterizing Potential Conflicts of Interest Among UpToDate and DynaMed Content Contributors
Authors: VanDeMark SooYoung H , Woloszyn Mia R , Christman Laura A , Gatusky Michael , Lam Warren S , Tilberry Stephanie S , Piper Brian J 
Published: October 2021

BACKGROUND

Financial conflicts of interest among physicians have the potential to negatively impact patient care. Physicians contribute content to two popular, evidence-based websites, UpToDate and DynaMed; while other physicians use these websites to influence their clinical decision making. Each website maintains a conflict-of-interest policy, and contributors are required to self-report a disclosure status. This research investigated the occurrence for potential conflicts of interest among the self-reported statuses of UpToDate and DynaMed content contributors.

METHODS

An initial list of contributors for each website was compiled using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2017 Leading Causes of Death. The top 50 causes were used to determine a relevant article with clinical implications from each database. All named authors and editors of those articles comprised our list of investigated contributors. Contributor disclosure status was then compared with public records of financial remuneration as reported in the Open Payments database maintained by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and ProPublica’s Dollar for Docs website from 2013 to 2018. Descriptive analysis and Fisher’s exact tests were performed on the data.

RESULTS

Of 76 UpToDate contributors, 57.9% reported nothing to disclose but had a record of receiving a financial payment on Open Payments, which was found to be statistically significant (p = 0.0002). Of DynaMed’s 42 contributors who reported nothing to disclose, 83.3% had an entry on Open Payments. However, this was not statistically significant. The sum total of industry payments between 2013-2018 made to UpToDate contributors was $68.1 million. The top ten UpToDate contributors who received the most financial remuneration earned approximately $56.1 million (82.4% of all UpToDate renumeration), were all male, and only one had a nothing-to-disclose status. The sum total of compensation reported for the discordant UpToDate contributors between 2013-2018 was approximately $4.81 million (or 7.07% of the total monies reported to UpToDate contributors.) In that same time frame, DynaMed contributors received a sum total of $9.58 million from industry, while the top ten DynaMed contributors earned $8.88 million (or 92.8%) of that. The top ten DynaMed contributors were 80% male and 20% female, and six individuals reported nothing to disclose, yet had an Open Payments entry. The sum total of money reported for all discordant DynaMed contributors between 2013-2018 was approximately $2.79 million (or 29.2% of the total monies reported to DynaMed contributors).

CONCLUSIONS

While this research does not ascertain that a conflict of interest or anything untoward, it does provide evidence that there was a significant difference between having an Open Payment entry among those who did versus those who did not disclose a conflict of interest. Websites such as UpToDate and DynaMed should consider implementing a more stringent conflict of interest policy and employ an unbiased team to verify self-reported disclosure statuses among its content contributors. Similarly, physicians who use such informational websites to inform their clinical decision making should look beyond a contributor’s self-reported disclosure status and verify relevant financial remuneration from the healthcare industry via Open Payments or Dollars for Docs.