Sharing medical research data: Financial conflicts should be included in online abstracts
There should be not only data transparency but also financial transparency.1 Most major medical journals have made financial disclosure mandatory. Yet, now that the internet allows free access to any biomedical abstract, readers of abstracts may be blinded to papers’ relevant financial disclosure unless they have a paid subscription to the journal.
I reviewed the ICMJE uniform requirements, the author instructions for 20 journals, including the BMJ, JAMA, the nine current Archives journals, New England Journal of Medicine, and the Lancet journals. None of them required, recommended, or even mentioned financial disclosure for structured or unstructured abstracts. Thus, readers might think that there was no potential financial conflict of interest when one exists. This is particularly important when the reader is a layperson attempting self education on the internet.
Of course, a reader could access a paper by paying a fee. One time access to the New England Journal of Medicine costs $10, to JAMA $15, and to Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery $30. Thus, many peer reviewed journals may have a potential financial conflict by not providing free access to the financial disclosure portion of the paper.
The BMJ should lead the way by mandating that abstracts have financial disclosure. Requiring a yes/no financial conflict statement in the structured abstract and allowing a free view of the financial disclosure part of the paper online will give readers valid information to make more reasoned decisions about the validity of abstracts’ conclusions.
BMJ 2009;338:b1934