INTRODUCTION
Conflict of interest (COI) is defined as a “circumstance that creates a risk where professional judgments or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest” (Field and Lo, 2009). The COI scope is not only financial; it can also include other forms, such as intellectual, professional, and institutional (Arend, 2017; Rohwer et al., 2017; Sharma, 2020). These could also have different ethical implications and should be reported in publications (Barber, 2020; Grinnell, 2014). For example, researchers with COI are at increased risk of irrelevant findings, decreased objectivity, impaired scientific judgment, and any other considerations that influence their professional decision-making (Cherla et al., 2019; Sharma, 2020). The consequences of COI could range from direct data fabrication or falsification to influence on the study design, explanation of data, and/or choice of studies or literature to make arguments (Bero, 2017). Other more subtle effects include reduced willingness to share data and lower concerns about the rights of research subjects and general health of the public, but rather ensuring financial profits of sponsors (Elliott, 2008).
The magnitude of COI could be determined by the value of the second interest and its undue influence on the decision-making and the predicted harm or risk that might result from this effect (Acquavella, 2019; Cienfuegos and Perez-Cuadrado Martinez, 2019; Field and Lo, 2009; Galandiuk, 2019). As stated by the World Association of Medical Editors, “COI in medical publishing impacts everyone with a stake in research integrity including journals, research and academic institutions, funding agencies, the popular media, and the public” (Ferris and Fletcher, 2012). The policies of COI usually focus on financial benefits. These policies concern management and prevention of COI rather than punishment, as they do not assume that financial benefits or any secondary interest could influence the professional’s judgment (Cherla et al., 2019; Samsa and Solomon, 2019). However, evidence exists showing that COIs influence professional judgment (Elliott, 2008). Thus, the most common strategy to manage and address COI is the disclosure of conflict (Boyd and Bero, 2007; Glaser and Bero, 2005). To improve the management of COI, an enforcement system called “Open Payments” was adopted in the United States (Slentz et al., 2019; Tisherman et al., 2021). The system is an open database that contains information on payments to academic researchers made by the industry (Chabner and Bates, 2018). Additionally, scientific reviewers who can assess the rigor and transparency of the research in fair and efficient ways are another layer to ensuring proper management of COI (Samsa and Solomon, 2019).
Institutions and universities usually establish or adopt policies and roles for reporting COI. Journals also request authors to disclose any of their relevant financial relations or any possible COIs (Hams et al., 2017; Resnik et al., 2016). Thus, researchers are required, by the journal or by their institutions, to report all the financial support or even material support during the conduct of the research (Fontanarosa and Bauchner, 2017; Thornton, 2017). The literature has shown some bias in research reports on the effectiveness and efficacy of medications due to the influence of the pharmaceutical industry (Garattini et al., 2020; Lexchin, 2012; Saito et al., 2019; Wranik et al., 2019). In addition, even in developed countries, not all medical schools and teaching hospitals have COI policies, and those that have one demonstrated differences in its content (Fabbri et al., 2021; Guy-Coichard et al., 2019). Studies from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), regarding COI are scarce (Al-Zyoud et al., 2019; Nakkash, 2018; Nasr et al., 2020; Sleem et al., 2010). In addition, not all institutional review boards in MENA have established policies to manage conflicts of interest ( Al-Zyoud et al., 2019; Sleem et al., 2010). Furthermore, about 40% of the researchers from low- and middle-income countries reported not having declared a COI in past researches (Rohwer et al., 2017). A study that included researchers who had participated in at least 10 clinical trials showed considerable variability in researchers’ understanding of the components of the COI and when such components should be reported (Østengaard et al., 2020). As pharmaceutical researchers are of particular interest, they often have partnerships with the pharmaceutical industry, which can increase their exposure to the impact of COI. In addition, the knowledge and practices of pharmacy researchers from the MENA region on COI have not yet been examined. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to assess pharmacy researchers’ awareness and perception about COI in the MENA region and the factors affecting the disclosure of their COI.
METHODS
Study design and study participants
This is a survey-based cross-sectional study that was conducted to evaluate pharmacy researchers’ awareness and perception about COI and to evaluate factors affecting their disclosure of COI. A convenience sample of pharmacy researchers working in academic institutions from the MENA region was targeted in this study.
Questionnaire development and data collection
The draft version of the questionnaire was developed by the research team following a comprehensive literature review of relevant investigations (Schwartz et al., 2007; Schetky, 2008). The questionnaire was tested for face and content validity by two experts in research ethics to ensure the clarity and the comprehensibility of the questions. Expert inputs were taken into consideration, and the questionnaire was modified consequently. After that, a pilot testing on 10 pharmacy academics was performed, where academics were asked to deliver their comments about the clarity and understandability of the questions included. Data collected during this pilot testing were not included in the final analysis of the results.
The questionnaire was divided into three main sections. The first section assesses the demographic information of the study participants, including gender, nationality, current academic rank, and the number of published papers; the second section assesses researchers’ awareness and practices in dealing with COI; and, finally, the third section assesses participants’ perception about COI. This section was evaluated using a 3-point Likert scale where “1 = disagree, 2 = neutral, and 3 = agree.”
The questionnaire was then uploaded on the Google Forms electronic platform, and it was distributed to the potential study participants via their professional emails. The first page of the questionnaire contains details about the study objective and voluntariness of participation, followed by an electronic consent where researchers were given the choice to voluntarily agree to participate or decline participation. The participants were informed that they did not have to disclose their identity and that data would be kept on the computer of the principal investigator using password-protected files.
Sample size calculation
The standard formula n = P × (1−P) × z2/d2 was used to calculate a minimal sample size, which was determined based on the most conservative proportion (P = 50%) of researchers to disclose their COI, using 10% desired precision, and confidence levels of 95%. Therefore, 96 pharmacy researchers were considered the minimum required sample size needed for this study.
Ethical consideration
Before study conduction, approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Jordan University of Science and Technology (JUST) (Reference No. 72/124/2019). The guidelines issued by the World Medical Association (2013), Declaration of Helsinki, was followed in the study. Participants were informed about the voluntariness of their participation. As per IRB permission, electronic informed consent was obtained from each participant, where the questionnaire would not open unless participants provided their approval to participate in this study.
Statistical analysis
The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS®) version 22 was used for data management and analysis. Categorical variables were expressed as frequency (percentages). Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between several predictors (including gender, academic rank, number of published papers, familiarity with the COI concept, and having a partnership with industry) and COI disclosure by the study participants. For this purpose, the number of published papers was divided using the 15-publication benchmark as this represents the average minimum number of publications needed to fulfill the requirement of full professor rank in universities in MENA. Univariate logistic regression was performed initially, and any variable that showed a p value< 0.25 was considered eligible for entry in the multiple logistic regression analysis. Multicollinearity between variables was checked using the Pearson correlation coefficient, where r < 0.09 indicates the absence of multicollinearity between the independent variables. Following multiple logistic regression, any variable with P <0.05 was considered a statistically significant predictor.
RESULTS
As presented in Table 1, 271 academic pharmacy researchers from the MENA region participated in this study. 58% of the study sample were male (n = 157), while females 42.1% of the respondents were female (n = 114). Researchers were from Jordan (n = 80, 29.5%), Egypt (n = 72, 26.6%), Saudi Arabia (n = 26, 9.6%), Iraq (n = 20, 7.4%), and other countries (n = 73, 26.9%). Distribution of participants per academic rank was professors (n = 63, 23.3%), associate professors (n = 59, 21.8%), assistant professors (n = 97, 35.8%), and lecturers 19.2%). Slightly less than half of the respondents (n = 122, 45.7%) published more than 15 research papers, while around 4.9% of them (n = 13) published more than 100 research papers. The remaining respondents published between 16 and 30 publications (n = 63, 23.6%) or between 31 and 100 publications (n = 69, 25.8%). Moreover, only 22.9% of the researchers (n = 62) reported that they have/had collaboration/funding with the industry, while the remaining 77.1% (n = 209) reported that they had no collaboration/funding with the industry. For more details about the sociodemographic and academic information, refer to Table 1.
 | Table 1. Sociodemographic and academic characteristics of the study participants (n = 271). [Click here to view] |
In this study, 88.9% of the researchers (n = 241) indicated that they were familiar with the COI concept, while only 11.1% of them (n = 30) were not familiar with the concept, as presented in Table 2. More than one-third (n = 108, 39.9%) of them knew that their institution had a policy for COI. Most of the participants (n = 219, 80.8%) agreed that disclosing COI is among the ways to manage COI, while others (n = 48, 17.7%) believed that avoiding the presence of COI is the best way to manage COI. Lastly, only 41.7% of the study participants (n = 113) indicated that they had disclosed COI in their published research.
Participants’ perception toward conflict of interest was evaluated (Table 3). The majority of participants agreed that COI should be disclosed by all authors (n = 229, 84.5%), as well as by reviewers and editors (n= 196, 72.3%). Most of the participants (n = 225, 94.1%) agreed that any financial or material support should be reported in the acknowledgment section of the published articles. Additionally, about half of the researchers (n= 131, 48.3%) believed that disclosure is the only way for COI management. Finally, the majority of participants (n= 215, 79.3%) agreed that COI could influence the integrity and the quality of research.
Finally, logistic regression analysis showed that participants who collaborated with the industry showed a significantly lower tendency to disclose their COI than those who did not have any collaboration with the industry (OR = 0.471, p = 0.017) (Table 4), while other variables including gender, academic rank, number of published papers, and familiarity with the COI concept showed no significant association with the tendency of respondents to disclose their COI (p > 0.05). Moreover, the logistic regression full model was able to predict more accurately than the null model [χ2 (df = 3) = 10.549 at p = 0.014].
DISCUSSION
Limited studies on COI have been conducted in the MENA region (Al-Zyoud et al., 2019; Heidari et al., 2012; Rababa’h et al., 2020). In this study, the awareness and practices of pharmacy researchers from the MENA region were investigated. The majority of academic researchers of various pharmaceutical disciplines indicated that they were familiar with the concept of COI and had a positive attitude toward the disclosure of COI. Most of the participants agreed that COI should be disclosed by all authors. This is consistent with a previous study conducted among researchers from several low- and middle-income countries, which showed that most of the health researchers agreed that financial conflict should be disclosed in the research project (Rohwer et al., 2017). In another study from the USA that examined researchers’ awareness and attitudes toward COI, researchers suggested the need for extra efforts to increase understanding of the relevance of COI policies for all academics included in the study (Lipton et al., 2004). Similarly, researchers from China indicated the need to enhance knowledge about COI principles among academics (Yang et al., 2021).
In this study, most of the participants agreed that COI should be disclosed by reviewers and editors and agreed that any financial or material support should be reported in their published articles. This is consistent with the policies and procedures of the majority of peer-reviewed journals and international publishers (Breimer et al., 2018; El Moheb et al., 2021). Moreover, most researchers believed that COI disclosure could impact the integrity/quality of research. It is notable, however, that previous studies have shown that in some instances disclosures of COIs not only fail to prevent the problems of COIs but may make those problems worse (Cain et al., 2010). Some researchers might avoid research that includes COI because they believe that COI disclosure is not enough and the quality of research could be influenced even if COI was declared (Rohwer et al., 2017). Academic institutional policies usually address COI disclosure, control, and removal via denudation or recusal (Elliott, 2008). In the majority of universities in Jordan, COI policies were reported to be inadequate (Al-Zyoud et al., 2019). However, it was previously argued that such strategies could fall short in the face of the wide range of influences of COI on researchers (Cain et al., 2010; Elliott, 2008). Thus, alternative strategies should be considered such as encouraging the conduction of more independent research to ensure scientific reliability and truthfulness (Elliott, 2008).
 | Table 2. Participants’ awareness and practice in dealing with conflict of interest (n = 271). [Click here to view] |
 | Table 3. Participants’ perceptions toward conflict of interest (n = 271). [Click here to view] |
 | Table 4. Assessment of the factors associated with conflict of interest disclosure (n = 271). [Click here to view] |
The unfortunate scenario is where the researcher does not disclose COI. In a study from lower-middle-income countries, 43% of researchers reported that they knew another researcher at their institution who did not disclose financial COI (Rohwer et al., 2017). In developed countries, considerable variability was found in clinical studies on researchers’ understanding of components of the COI and when such components should be reported (Østengaard et al., 2020). COI (including nonfinancial) information was estimated to be underreported in medical journals (El Moheb et al., 2021; Faggion et al., 2020). In a study from MENA, COI disclosure was required by about 45% of the Iranian journals (Heidari et al., 2012). In a study from Spain, undisclosed COI was reported to be highly prevalent for authors in major journals (Tisherman et al., 2020). COI financial reports for drug trial authors in meta-analyses and systematic reviews published in high-impact journals have been shown to be suboptimal (Benea et al., 2020). Comparably, the participants of the current study had a positive attitude toward the declaration of COI; however, only 41.7% of respondents reported COI. The reasons behind such a discrepancy between attitude and actual practice of COI disclosure are unknown. Probably, a comprehensive qualitative study could give more in-depth insight into this issue. In a study that was conducted in China, most of the underreporting was attributed to the lack of knowledge about COI, followed by concern that a COI would lead to rejection of the manuscript by the journals (Yang et al., 2021). Efforts should be made by research and academic institutions in the MENA region to train the researchers on COI and the importance of financial and nonfinancial COI disclosure.
The present results showed that pharmacy researchers collaborating with the industry reported a significantly lower tendency to declare COI than those without any industry partnership. Partnerships between academic researchers and the industry could be associated with a kind of bias in the results or the design of the research project. For example, a study showed that funding of drug and device studies by the industry leads to more favorable findings and conclusions than funding from sources other than the industry (Lundh et al., 2017). Some have argued that the main reason for positive results in industry-funded research is that the industry typically sponsors studies in which results are likely to be positive (Barbieri and Drummond, 2001). A previous study conducted on plastic surgeons showed discordance between researchers self-reporting in scientific journals and the government-mandated reporting of COI by the industry (Lopez et al., 2018). In a study from developing countries, researchers believed that, even with funding declaration, partnerships with commercial companies could affect researchers at some level in their research (Rohwer et al., 2017). This could explain why researchers with a partnership with the industry tend not to disclose COI. Moreover, as the collaboration with the industry could restrict researchers from controlling publication decisions and may affect study design, researchers should be aware of their responsibilities as authors to guarantee study integrity (Hirsch, 2009). Thus, relationships with the industry provide opportunities for innovative research, but not declaring COI may undermine confidence in academic integrity (Ross et al., 2020).
One way to improve COI management and reporting is to include the concepts of COI as an integral part of medical students’ undergraduate curriculum and education ( Andresen et al., 2017; Bechoux et al., 2021; Deis et al., 2020), thus, avoiding COI cases among pharmacists who are likely to become future researchers and experts working with the drug industry. A previous study from Jordan showed that the majority of graduating-year pharmacy students were unaware of COI, which was related to the limited coverage of COI concepts in their pharmacy curriculum (Ababneh et al., 2020). In a study that was conducted in France, about 85% of the medical students reported feeling inadequately educated about COI (Deis et al., 2020). Thus, it is evident that university medical curricula in some countries lack key concepts related to COI, disclosure of financial interests, and the ethical obligation to declare COI.
Finally, it is important to highlight that there were some limitations that must be pointed out in this study. First, the study data were collected via a self-administered questionnaire which might have generated a risk of bias since the participants would possibly display socially desirable answers. In addition, the sample size needed was calculated based on a formula for prevalence study. However, logistic regression analysis was also conducted which may need a larger sample size. Furthermore, the response rate was not calculated in this study because of the inability to determine the number of academics who received the email within the contacted institutions. The study should be expanded to include researchers from other fields. Finally, the actual practices to manage COI in research should be addressed in future investigations.
CONCLUSION
Pharmaceutical researchers indicated that they were generally familiar with the concept of COI and believed that an existing conflict should be disclosed. This study reveals that the awareness of pharmaceutical academic researchers in the MENA region about the strategies for COI management and their disclosure practice need to be improved. Finally, industry collaborators showed a lower tendency to disclose their conflict of interest than noncollaborators. Thus, efforts should be made to educate researchers about the importance of disclosing their COI which might reduce the potential of bias in their published research. Future studies should explore in-depth the reasons behind not reporting COI by some researchers. In addition, evaluation of the effectiveness of the currently implemented strategies to manage and mentor COI in the MENA region is needed.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
FUNDING
Work on this project was supported by Grants # 5R25TW010026-02 and 2R25TW010026-06A1 from the Fogarty International Center of the U.S. National Institutes of Health. The funding body had no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.
AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS
Hadeia Mashaqhbeh, Karem H. Alzoubi, and Omar F. Khabour contributed to the study design, data collection, and manuscript writing. Rana Abu-Farha contributed to study design, data analysis, and manuscript writing.
ETHICAL APPROVALS
The approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Jordan University of Science and Technology (JUST) (Reference No. 72/124/2019).
PUBLISHER’S NOTE
This journal remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published institutional affiliation.
DATA AVAILABILITY
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
REFERENCES
Ababneh RA, Alzoubi KH, Ababneh MA. Evaluation of pharmacy students’ knowledge and perception of scientific integrity. Educ Sci, 2020; 10(2): 1-6. CrossRef
Acquavella J. Conflict of interest: a hazard for epidemiology. Ann Epidemiol, 2019; 34:8–11. CrossRef
Al-Zyoud W, Mansour S, Elayan F, Homsi N, Ajeilat H, Dajani R. Conflict of Interest in Research at Universities: a pioneer investigation in Jordan. Int J Educ Res, 2019; 3(9):1–11.
Andresen NS, Olson TS, Krasowski MD. Medical student and medical school teaching faculty perceptions of conflict of interest. BMC Res Notes, 2017; 10(1):272. CrossRef
Arend RJ. Conflicts of Interest as corrupting the checks and balances in the postpublication oversight of academic business journals. J Manag Inquiry, 2017; 28(1):57–66. CrossRef
Barber K. Conflict of interest—let the readers decide. J Cutan Med Surg, 2020; 24(3):238–39. CrossRef
Barbieri M, Drummond MF. Conflict of interest in industry-sponsored economic evaluations: real or imagined? Curr Oncol Rep, 2001; 3(5):410–3. CrossRef
Bechoux L, De Vleeschouwer O, Vanheuverzwijn C, Verhegghen F, Detiffe A, Colle F, Fallon C, Thoreau F. Conflict of interest policies at Belgian medical faculties: Cross-sectional study indicates little oversight. PLoS One, 2021; 16(2):e0245736. CrossRef
Benea C, Turner KA, Roseman M, Bero LA, Lexchin J, Turner EH, Thombs BD. Reporting of financial conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of drug trials published in high-impact medical journals: comparison of results from 2017 to 2018 and 2009. Syst Rev, 2020; 9(1):77. CrossRef
Bero L. Addressing bias and conflict of interest among biomedical researchers. JAMA, 2017; 317(17):1723–4. CrossRef
Boyd EA, Bero LA. Defining financial conflicts and managing research relationships: an analysis of university conflict of interest committee decisions. Sci Eng Ethics, 2007; 13(4):415–35. CrossRef
Breimer LH, Nilsson TK, Breimer ME. Declarations of conflict of interest are still inadequate. Indian J Med Ethics, 2018; 3(3):256–57. CrossRef
Cain DM, Loewenstein G, Moore DA. When sunlight fails to disinfect: understanding the perverse effects of disclosing conflicts of interest. J Consumer Res, 2010; 37(5):836–57. CrossRef
Chabner BA, Bates SE. Conflict of interest: an ethical firestorm with consequences for cancer research. Oncologist, 2018; 23(12):1391–3. CrossRef
Cherla DV, Viso CP, Holihan JL, Bernardi K, Moses ML, Mueck KM, Olavarria OA, Flores-Gonzalez JR, Balentine CJ, Ko TC, Adams SD, Pedroza C, Kao LS, Liang MK. The Effect of financial conflict of interest, disclosure status, and relevance on medical research from the United States. J Gen Intern Med, 2019; 34(3):429–34. CrossRef
Cienfuegos JA, Perez-Cuadrado Martinez E. Conflict of interest. Why is it important? Rev Esp Enferm Dig, 2019; 111(6):413–5. CrossRef
Deis N, Koch C, Dreimüller N, Gaitzsch E, Weißkircher J, Jünger J, Lieb K. Development, implementation, and evaluation of a curriculum for medical students on conflicts of interest and communicating risk. GMS J Med Educ, 2020; 37(1):Doc3.
El Moheb M, Karam BS, Assi L, Armache M, Khamis AM, Akl EA. The policies for the disclosure of funding and conflict of interest in surgery journals: a cross-sectional survey. World J Surg, 2021; 45(1):97–108. CrossRef
Elliott KC. Scientific judgment and the limits of conflict-of-interest policies. Account Res, 2008; 15(1):1–29. CrossRef
Fabbri A, Hone KR, Hróbjartsson A, Lundh A. Conflict of interest policies at medical schools and teaching hospitals: a systematic review of cross-sectional studies. Int J Health Policy Manag, 2021. Epub ahead of print 2021/04/05; doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2021.12 CrossRef
Faggion CM, Jr., Pandis N, Cardoso GC, Rodolfo B, Morel LL, Moraes RR. Reporting of conflict of interest and sponsorship in dental journals. J Dent, 2020; 102:103452. CrossRef
Ferris LE, Fletcher RH. Conflict of interest in peer-reviewed medical journals: the world association of medical editors (WAME) position on a challenging problem. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther, 2012; 2(3):188–91.
Field MJ, Lo B (2009) Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Fontanarosa P, Bauchner H. Conflict of interest and medical journalsconflict of interest and medical journals editorial. JAMA, 2017; 317(17):1768–71. CrossRef
Galandiuk S. Industry-sponsored studies and conflict of interest. Dis Colon Rectum, 2019; 62(2):135–6. CrossRef
Garattini L, Padula A, Mannucci PM. Conflicts of interest in medicine: a never-ending story. Intern Emerg Med, 2020; 15(3):357–9. CrossRef
Glaser BE, Bero LA. Attitudes of academic and clinical researchers toward financial ties in research: a systematic review. Sci Eng Ethics, 2005; 11(4):553–73. CrossRef
Grinnell F. The interrelationship between research integrity, conflict of interest, and the research environment. J Microbiol Biol Educ, 2014; 15(2):162–4. CrossRef
Guy-Coichard C, Perraud G, Chailleu A, Gaillac V, Scheffer P, Mintzes B. Inadequate conflict of interest policies at most French teaching hospitals: a survey and website analysis. PLoS One, 2019; 14(11):e0224193. CrossRef
Hams M, Wilkinson WG, Zentner L, Schmidt C, Dweik RA, Karafa M, Rose SL. A new survey to evaluate conflict of interest policies at academic medical centers. PLoS One, 2017; 12(3):e0172472. CrossRef
Heidari A, Adeli SH, Mehravaran S, Asghari F. Addressing ethical considerations and authors’ conflict of interest disclosure in medical journals in Iran. J Bioeth Inq, 2012; 9(4):457–62. CrossRef
Hirsch LJ. Conflicts of interest, authorship, and disclosures in industry-related scientific publications: the tort bar and editorial oversight of medical journals. Mayo Clin Proc, 2009; 84(9):811–21. CrossRef
Lexchin J. Sponsorship bias in clinical research. Int J Risk Saf Med, 2012; 24(4):233–42. CrossRef
Lipton S, Boyd E, Bero L. Conflicts of interest in academic research: policies, processes, and attitudes. Account Res, 2004; 11(2):83–102. CrossRef
Lopez J, Samaha G, Purvis TE, Siegel G, Jabbari J, Ahmed R, Milton J, Tufaro AP, May JW, Jr., Dorafshar AH. The accuracy of conflict-of-interest disclosures reported by plastic surgeons and industry. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2018; 141(6):1592–9. CrossRef
Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, Schroll JB, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2017; 2(2):Mr000033. CrossRef
Nakkash R. Knowledge translation to counteract COI from corporations: a case from Lebanon. European Journal of Public Health, 2018; 28(suppl_4). CrossRef
Nasr SS, Sherif GM, Ibrahim AS, Allam RM. Pitfalls in scientific research: critical appraisal of articles published in one of the international journals in Egypt. J Egypt Natl Cancer Inst, 2020; 32(1):39. CrossRef
Østengaard L, Lundh A, Tjørnhøj-Thomsen T, Abdi S, Gelle MHA, Stewart LA, Boutron I, Hróbjartsson A. Influence and management of conflicts of interest in randomised clinical trials: qualitative interview study. BMJ, 2020; 371:m3764. CrossRef
Rababa’h AM, Alzoubi KH, Ababneh M, Khabour OF. Awareness of Jordanian investigators about the importance of ethics review committees: a pilot study. Sci Eng Ethics, 2020; 26(2):821–31. CrossRef
Resnik DB, Ariansen JL, Jamal J, Kissling GE. Institutional conflict of interest policies at U.S. academic research institutions. Acad Med, 2016; 91(2):242–6. CrossRef
Rohwer A, Young T, Wager E, Garner P. Authorship, plagiarism and conflict of interest: views and practices from low/middle-income country health researchers. BMJ Open, 2017; 7(11):e018467. CrossRef
Ross PR, Wood SM, Chung KC. Industry Funding and Self-Declared Conflict of Interest in Hand Surgery Publications. J Hand Surg Am, 2020; 45(6):479–87. CrossRef
Saito H, Ozaki A, Sawano T, Shimada Y, Tanimoto T. Evaluation of pharmaceutical company payments and conflict of interest disclosures among oncology clinical practice guideline authors in Japan. JAMA Netw Open, 2019; 2(4):e192834. CrossRef
Samsa G, Solomon A. Managing the science in the presence of financial conflict of interest. Account Res, 2019; 26(6):397–403. CrossRef
Schetky DH. Conflicts of interest between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry and special interest groups. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am, 2008; 17(1):113–125, ix-x. CrossRef
Schwartz B, Banting D, Stitt L. Perceptions about conflicts of interest: an Ontario survey of dentists’ opinions. J Dent Educ, 2007; 71(12):1540–8. CrossRef
Sharma S. Disclosure of conflict of interest in scientific publications. Perspect Clin Res, 2020; 11(4):137–8. CrossRef
Sleem H, El-Kamary SS, Silverman HJ. Identifying structures, processes, resources and needs of research ethics committees in Egypt. BMC Med Ethics, 2010; 11(1):12. CrossRef
Slentz DH, Nelson CC, Lichter PR. Characteristics of industry payments to ophthalmologists in the Open Payments Database. JAMA Ophthalmol, 2019; 137(9):1038–44. CrossRef
Thornton JP. Conflict of interest and legal issues for investigators and authors. JAMA, 2017; 317(17):1761–2. CrossRef
Tisherman RT, Couch BK, Reddy RP, Tisherman SA, Shaw JD. Conflict of interest disclosure in orthopaedic and general surgical trauma literature. Injury, 2021; 52(8):2148–53. CrossRef
Tisherman RT, Wawrose RA, Chen J, Donaldson WF, Lee JY, Shaw JD. Undisclosed conflict of interest is prevalent in spine literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 2020; 45(21):1524–29. CrossRef
World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA, 2013; 310(20):2191–4. CrossRef
Wranik WD, Zieli?ska DA, Gambold L, Sevgur S. Threats to the value of health technology assessment: qualitative evidence from Canada and Poland. Health Policy, 2019; 123(2):191–202. CrossRef
Yang L, Xu S, Shao J, Wang P, Wang X, Qi Q, Yang R. Declaration of conflict of interest in medical researchers: a cross-sectional study from China. Learned Publishing, 2021; 32(2):253-60. CrossRef