CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17Pharmaceutical industry and healthcareAcademic integrity and plagiarismGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology

Conflicts of interest in infection prevention and control research: no smoke without fire. A narrative review

Open access
Abbas, Mohamed, Pires, Daniela, Peters, Alexandra, Morel, Chantal M, Hurst, Samia, Holmes, Alison, Saito, Hiroki, Allegranzi, Benedetta +4 more·2018·Intensive Care Medicine
DOI 10.1007/s00134-018-5361-z
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Conflicts of interest (COIs) do occur in healthcare research, yet their impact on research in the field of infection prevention and control (IPC) is unknown. We conducted a narrative review aiming to identify examples of COIs in IPC research. In addition to well-known instances, we conducted PubMed and Google searches to identify and report case studies of COIs in IPC and antimicrobial resistance (AMR), which were chosen arbitrarily following consensus meetings, to illustrate different types of COIs. We also searched the Retraction Watch database and blog to systematically identify retracted IPC and/or infectious disease-related papers. Our review highlights COIs in academic research linked to ties between industry and physicians, journal editors, peer-reviewed journals' choice for publication, and guideline committees participants and authors. It explores how COIs can affect research and could be managed. We also present several selected case studies that involve (1) the chlorhexidine industry and how it has used marketing trials and key opinion leaders to promote off-label use of its products; (2) the copper industry and how reporting of its trials in IPC have furthered their agenda; (3) the influence of a company developing "closed infusion systems" for catheters and how this affects networks in low- and middle-income countries and guideline development; (4) potential perverse incentives hospitals may have in reporting healthcare-associated infection or AMR rates and how government intervention may restrict AMR research for fear of bad publicity and subsequent negative economic consequences. Finally, the analysis of reasons for the retraction of previously published papers highlights the fact that misconduct in research may have other motivations than financial gain, the most visible form of COIs. COIs occur in the field of research in general, and IPC and AMR are no exceptions. Their effects pervade all aspects of the research and publication processes. We believe that, in addition to improvements in management strategies of COIs, increased public funding should be available to decrease researchers' dependency on industry ties. Further research is needed on COIs and their management.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00134-018-5361-z

Cites

106 of 106 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Transparent and reproducible science offers well-established benefits: enhanced research reliability and credibility, increased applicability of results, and reduced bias and waste of resources.

    “Transparent and reproducible science offers well-established benefits: enhanced research reliability and credibility, increased applicability of results, and reduced bias and waste of resources [10–14].”

    From Assessing transparency practices in dental randomized controlled trials (2024) · cites this paper as [14]

    The paper’s 'Management of conflicts of interest' section (page unavailable) says that timely public disclosure of trial results enhances transparency and allows more informed decisions. Its 'How do COIs affect research?' section also says that publishing all research regardless of findings may mitigate publication bias. It does not establish the broader claimed benefits for reproducibility, research reliability and credibility, applicability of results, or reduced waste of resources. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Reporting funding and conflicts of interest helps prevent bias; reinforces researchers' commitment to conducting research impartially; and enables readers, reviewers, and editors to better assess results by understanding potential external influences.

    “Reporting funding and conflicts of interest helps prevent bias; reinforces researchers’ commitment to conducting research impartially; and enables readers, reviewers, and editors to better assess results by understanding potential external influences [13, 14].”

    From Assessing transparency practices in dental randomized controlled trials (2024) · cites this paper as [14]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Chen D, Gong L, Walsh TR, Lan R, Wang T, Zhang J et al (2016) Infection by and dissemination of NDM-5-producing Escherichia coli in China. J Antimicrob Chemother 71(2):563-565 100.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Abbas, M., Pires, D., Peters, A., Morel, C. M., Hurst, S., Holmes, A., Saito, H., Allegranzi, B., Lucet, J.-C., Zingg, W., Harbarth, S., & Pittet, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Geneva (CH)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (GB)
  • World Health Organization (CH)
  • Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris (FR)
Corresponding author
Abbas, Mohamed
ORCID
Venue
Intensive Care Medicine
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-09-11
Volume
44
Issue
10
Pages
1679-1690
ISSN
  • 0342-4642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1238
DOI
10.1007/s00134-018-5361-z
OpenAlex
W2889567243
Cited by
17
References
106
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2
FWCI
0.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Intensive Care Medicine (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (acceptedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (32003B_163262)
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (163262)
  • Université de Genève
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Keywords
conflicts of interest, antimicrobial resistance, industry funding, retracted article, research misconduct, copper industry, catheters, nosocomial infections, guideline development, publication bias, key opinion leaders, off-label drug use, perverse incentives, government research funding
MeSH terms
Humans, Research Personnel, Research Support as Topic, Conflict of Interest, Infection Control, Biomedical Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review