Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회지)

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Conflicts of Interest in Research and Clinical Practice

연구 및 진료에서의 이해상충

  • Ji Hoon Shin (Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center)
  • 신지훈 (울산대학교 의과대학 서울아산병원 영상의학과)
  • Received : 2022.04.12
  • Accepted : 2022.06.28
  • Published : 2022.07.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Recently, doctors and researchers are establishing relationships with interested parties from companies, research institutes, health care institutions, and academic journals, instead of conducting independent medical care or research work. They may have multiple interests as an advisor or a shareholder in the relevant company. Such a situation can foster a conflict of interest when their interests influence one's decision or judgment. Conflict of interest is an extremely important issue because it can infringe the integrity of research, endanger subjects or patients, pose a risk to the public, and deteriorate public perception of science. This brief review explores the definition, examples, and solutions to conflict of interest.

최근 의사들이나 연구자들은 진료나 연구에서 독자적으로 수행하기보다는, 회사, 연구기관, 보건의료기관, 및 학술 저널의 관련인들과 관계를 맺게 된다, 혹은 그들이 관련 회사에서의 자문 및 주주 참여 등과 같은 다중적 이해관계(multiple interests)를 가지기도 한다. 그러한 이해관계가 연구자의 의사결정에 지대한 영향을 미치는 경우 이해상충이 발생할 수 있다. 이해상충은 연구 진실성을 침해하여 피험자나 환자를 위험에 빠뜨리기도 하고 공공에 대한 위험을 초래할 수 있고 과학에 대한 대중의 인식을 악화시킬 수도 있기에 매우 중요한 문제라고 할 수 있다. 이 종설에서는 이해상충의 개념과 구체적인 사례 및 이에 대한 해법을 살펴보고자 한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Gelsinger P, Shamoo AE. Eight years after Jesse's death, are human research subjects any safer? Hastings Cent Rep 2008;38:25-27 
  2. Youn YH, Lee I. Conflict of interest in medical practice and research. Korean J Gastroenterol 2012;60:149-154 
  3. Kim E. A study on the legal policy problems and countermeasures about conflicts of interest. Korean Society of Law and Medicine 2018;19:165-206 
  4. Hampson LA, Bekelman JE, Gross CP. Empirical data on conflicts of interest. In Emanuel EJ, Grady CC, Crouch RA, Lie RK, Miller FG, Wendler DD, eds. The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. New York: Oxford University Press 2008:767-779 
  5. Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson DM, Malik M, et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 1998;351:637-641 
  6. Retraction--Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 2010;375:445 
  7. Kuklo TR, Groth AT, Anderson RC, Frisch HM, Islinger RB. Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 for grade III open segmental tibial fractures from combat injuries in Iraq. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008;90:1068-1072 
  8. Scott J. Withdrawal of a paper. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009;91:285-286 
  9. Brown SD, Daly JC, Kalish LA, McDaniel SA. Financial disclosures of scientific papers presented at the 2003 RSNA Annual Meeting: association with reporting of non-Food and Drug Administration-approved uses of industry products. Radiology 2006;239:849-855 
  10. Ferris LE, Fletcher RH. Conflict of interest in peer-reviewed medical journals: the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) position on a challenging problem. Neurosurgery 2010;66:629-630 
  11. Drazen JM, Van der Weyden MB, Sahni P, Rosenberg J, Marusic A, Laine C, et al. Uniform format for disclosure of competing interests in ICMJE journals. N Engl J Med 2009;361:1896-1897 
  12. Darmon M, Helms J, De Jong A, Hjortrup PB, Weiss E, Granholm A, et al. Time trends in the reporting of conflicts of interest, funding and affiliation with industry in intensive care research: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med 2018;44:1669-1678 
  13. Califf RM, Zarin DA, Kramer JM, Sherman RE, Aberle LH, Tasneem A. Characteristics of clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, 2007-2010. JAMA 2012;307:1838-1847 
  14. Dunn AG, Coiera E, Mandl KD, Bourgeois FT. Conflict of interest disclosure in biomedical research: a review of current practices, biases, and the role of public registries in improving transparency. Res Integr Peer Rev 2016;1:1