Academic Influence and Industry Funding in Acellular Dermal Matrix Research: A Co-authorship Network Analysis
- PMID: 40310011
- DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000004164
Academic Influence and Industry Funding in Acellular Dermal Matrix Research: A Co-authorship Network Analysis
Abstract
Background: Previous research has demonstrated correlations between quantity of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) studies published and industry payments received. The present study extends this work by employing a co-authorship network analysis to quantitatively identify a broader cohort of influential investigators in the field of ADM and analyze their financial relationships with industry.
Methods: Studies from 11 plastic surgery journals focusing on ADM were retrieved from PubMed. Author names were extracted, cleaned, and placed into an adjacency matrix to generate a co-authorship network. Degree centrality, a representation of influence within the network, was then quantified for each author. Total industry payments received from ADM-producing companies were calculated for authors with exceptional centrality, defined as >11 (95th percentile; n = 99), using the Open Payments database. Spearman's rank correlation and simple linear regression were used to analyze the relationship between centrality and payments received.
Results: A total of 1651 authors (nodes) from 535 studies were incorporated into the network, with 9360 co-authorships (ties) between them. Ninety-nine authors attained a centrality >11. Of the 57 US-based clinicians within this cohort of 99, 49 (86%) received at least one payment from an ADM-producing company. The average total payment received for this cohort was $98,756 (SD, $262,405). The grand total for all authors was $4,839,086. Spearman correlation revealed a significant positive correlation between centrality and industry payments (ρ = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.027-0.54; P < 0.05). Simple linear regression demonstrated an estimated 18% increase in total pay per additional unit of centrality (95% CI, 5%-30%; P = 0.007).
Conclusions: This study examines academic influence in the realm of ADM research via a co-authorship network analysis and demonstrates a high prevalence of funding among influential authors as well as a significant relationship between centrality and payments received. These findings underscore the need for discussions concerning objectivity in clinical research, although it is uncertain whether academic influence is a target of industry or if industry support bolsters academic success.
Keywords: acellular dermal matrix; co-authorship network analysis; conflicts of interest; industry funding.
Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared.
Similar articles
-
Academic Influence and Industry Funding in Nerve Allograft Research: A Coauthorship Network Analysis.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2025 Mar 1;155(3):632e-641e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000011759. Epub 2024 Sep 17. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2025. PMID: 39287958
-
Rise of Acellular Dermal Matrix: Cost Consciousness, Industry Payment, and Publication Productivity.J Am Coll Surg. 2023 Jun 1;236(6):1189-1197. doi: 10.1097/XCS.0000000000000648. Epub 2023 Feb 9. J Am Coll Surg. 2023. PMID: 36757115
-
Financial Conflicts of Interest of United States-Based Authors in Neurology Journals: Cross-Sectional Study Using the Open Payments Database.Neurology. 2021 Apr 6;96(14):e1913-e1920. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000011701. Epub 2021 Feb 25. Neurology. 2021. PMID: 33632804 Free PMC article.
-
Controversies surrounding authorship of manuscripts by industry employees: academic and industry perspectives.EuroIntervention. 2018 Mar 20;13(16):1967-1974. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-16-00918. EuroIntervention. 2018. PMID: 29278351 Review.
-
Industry-specific Patterns in the Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest in Hand and Upper Extremity Surgery: A Review of the Nerve Allograft Industry.J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2022 Nov 15;30(22):1083-1089. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-22-00326. Epub 2022 Aug 16. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2022. PMID: 36001882 Review.
References
-
- Djulbegovic B, Guyatt GH. Progress in evidence-based medicine: a quarter century on. Lancet. 2017;390:415–423.
-
- Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003;289:454–465.
-
- Lopez J, Samaha G, Purvis TE, et al. The accuracy of conflict-of-interest disclosures reported by plastic surgeons and industry. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;141:1592–1599.
-
- Boyll P, Neville M, Bernard R, et al. Author disclosures in plastic surgery journals compared with information reported in the open payments database: how open are we? Aesthet Surg J. 2019;39:338–342.
-
- Tian T, Sekigami Y, Char S, et al. Assessment of conflicts of interest in studies of breast implants and breast implant mesh. Aesthet Surg J. 2021;41:1269–1275.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources