Conflict of Interest Policies at Medical Schools and Teaching Hospitals: A Systematic Review of Cross-sectional Studies

Document Type : Review Article


1 Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO), University of Southern Denmark and Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

2 Tobacco Control Research Group, Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath, UK

3 Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO) and Cochrane Denmark, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

4 Open Patient data Explorative Network (OPEN), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

5 Department of Infectious Diseases, Hvidovre Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark


This systematic review aims to estimate the proportion of medical schools and teaching hospitals with conflicts of interest (COI) policies for health research and education, to describe the provisions included in the policies and their impact on research outputs and educational quality or content.

Experimental and observational studies reporting at least one of the above mentioned aims were included irrespective of language, publication type or geographical setting. MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase and the Cochrane Methodology Register were searched from inception to March 2020. Methodological study quality was assessed using an amended version of the Joanna Briggs Institute’s checklist for prevalence studies.
Twenty-two cross-sectional studies were included; all were conducted in high-income countries. Of these, 20 studies estimated the prevalence of COI policies, which ranged from 5% to 100% (median: 85%). Twenty studies assessed the provisions included in COI policies with different assessment methods. Of these, nine analysed the strength of the content of medical schools’ COI policies using various assessment tools that looked at a range of policy domains. The mean standardised summary score of policy strength ranged from 2% to 73% (median: 30%), with a low score indicating a weak policy. North American institutions more frequently had COI policies and their content was rated as stronger than policies from European institutions. None of the included studies assessed the impact of COI policies on research outputs or educational quality or content.
Prevalence of COI policies at medical schools and teaching hospitals varied greatly in high-income countries. No studies estimated the prevalence of policies in low to middle-income countries. The content of COI policies varied widely and while most European institutions ranked poorly, in North America more medical schools had strong policies. No studies were identified on impact of COI policies on research outputs and educational quality or content.


  1. Lo B, Field MJ. Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009.
  2. Ahn R, Woodbridge A, Abraham A, et al. Financial ties of principal investigators and randomized controlled trial outcomes: cross-sectional  study. BMJ. 2017;356:i6770. doi:10.1136/bmj.i6770
  3. Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, Schroll JB, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2:MR000033. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub3
  4. Hansen C, Lundh A, Rasmussen K, Hróbjartsson A. Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews: associations with results, conclusions, and methodological quality. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;8(8):MR000047. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000047.pub2
  5. Nejstgaard CH, Bero L, Hróbjartsson A, et al. Association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: systematic review. BMJ. 2020;371:m4234. doi:10.1136/bmj.m4234
  6. Gøtzsche PC, Hróbjartsson A, Johansen HK, Haahr MT, Altman DG, Chan AW. Constraints on publication rights in industry-initiated clinical trials. JAMA. 2006;295(14):1645-1646. doi:10.1001/jama.295.14.1645
  7. Lundh A, Krogsbøll LT, Gøtzsche PC. Access to data in industry-sponsored trials. Lancet. 2011;378(9808):1995-1996. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61871-0
  8. Shnier A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, Jutel A, Holloway K. Too few, too weak: conflict of interest policies at Canadian medical schools. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e68633. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068633
  9. Chimonas S, Evarts SD, Littlehale SK, Rothman DJ. Managing conflicts of interest in clinical care: the "race to the middle" at U.S. medical schools. Acad Med. 2013;88(10):1464-1470. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182a2e204
  10. Chimonas S, Patterson L, Raveis VH, Rothman DJ. Managing conflicts of interest in clinical care: a national survey of policies at U.S. medical schools. Acad Med. 2011;86(3):293-299. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182087156
  11. Lexchin J, Sekeres M, Gold J, et al. National evaluation of policies on individual financial conflicts of interest in Canadian academic health science centers. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(11):1896-1903. doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0752-4
  12. Grabitz P, Friedmann Z, Gepp S, et al. Quantity and quality of conflict of interest policies at German medical schools: a cross-sectional study and survey. BMJ Open. 2020;10(9):e039782. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039782
  13. Scheffer P, Guy-Coichard C, Outh-Gauer D, et al. Conflict of interest policies at French medical schools: starting from the bottom. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0168258. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0168258
  14. Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data. The Joanna Briggs Institute website. Published 2017.
  15. Fabbri A, Parker L, Colombo C, et al. Industry funding of patient and health consumer organisations: systematic review with meta-analysis. BMJ. 2020;368:l6925. doi:10.1136/bmj.l6925
  16. Newcombe RG. Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med. 1998;17(8):857-872. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19980430);2-e
  17. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177-188. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
  18. Freeman MF, Tukey JW. Transformations related to the angular and the square root. Ann Math Statist. 1950;21(4):607-11. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177729756
  19. Seeking disclosure. GMHC treatment issues: the Gay Men's Health Crisis newsletter of experimental AIDS therapies. xxxx. 2001;15(11-12):16.
  20. Steiner DJ. Pharmaceuticals and medical devices: business practices. Issue Brief Health Policy Track Serv. 2012:1-35.
  21. Klein T, Graves J. The scope of inclusion of academic conflict of interest policies. J Acad Ethics. 2018;16(2):103-116. doi:10.1007/s10805-017-9298-6
  22. Mason PR, Tattersall MHN. Conflicts of interest: a review of institutional policy in Australian medical schools. Med J Aust. 2011;194(3):121-125. doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2011.tb04193.x
  23. Mathieu G, Smith E, Potvin MJ, Williams-Jones B. Conflict of Interest Policies at Canadian Universities and Medical Schools: Some Lessons from the AMSA PharmFree Scorecard. BioéthiqueOnline; 2012.
  24. Yeh JS, Austad KE, Franklin JM, et al. Association of medical students' reports of interactions with the pharmaceutical and medical device industries and medical school policies and characteristics: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2014;11(10):e1001743. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001743
  25. Lieb K, Koch C. Conflicts of interest in medical school: missing policies and high need for student information at most German universities. GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2014;31(1):Doc10. doi:10.3205/zma000902
  26. 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. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0224193
  27. Wolf LE, Zandecki J. Conflicts of interest in research: how IRBs address their own conflicts. IRB. 2007;29(1):6-12.
  28. Ehringhaus SH, Weissman JS, Sears JL, Goold SD, Feibelmann S, Campbell EG. Responses of medical schools to institutional conflicts of interest. JAMA. 2008;299(6):665-671. doi:10.1001/jama.299.6.665
  29. Lo B, Wolf LE, Berkeley A. Conflict-of-interest policies for investigators in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(22):1616-1620. doi:10.1056/nejm200011303432206
  30. Weinfurt KP, Hall MA, Hardy NC, Friedman JY, Schulman KA, Sugarman J. Oversight of financial conflicts of interest in commercially sponsored research in academic and nonacademic settings. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(5):460-464. doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1264-6
  31. Sierles FS, Brodkey AC, Cleary LM, et al. Medical students' exposure to and attitudes about drug company interactions: a national survey. JAMA. 2005;294(9):1034-1042. doi:10.1001/jama.294.9.1034
  32. Kaufman PE, Cohen JE, Ashley MJ, et al. Tobacco industry links to faculties of medicine in Canada. Can J Public Health. 2004;95(3):205-208. doi:10.1007/bf03403650
  33. Rochon PA, Sekeres M, Lexchin J, et al. Institutional financial conflicts of interest policies at Canadian academic health science centres: a national survey. Open Med. 2010;4(3):e134-138.
  34. Campbell EG, Vogeli C, Rao SR, Abraham M, Pierson R, Applebaum S. Industry relationships among academic institutional review board members: changes from 2005 through 2014. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(9):1500-1506. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.3167
  35. Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Vogeli C, et al. Financial relationships between institutional review board members and industry. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(22):2321-2329. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa061457
  36. Carlat DJ, Fagrelius T, Ramachandran R, Ross JS, Bergh S. The updated AMSA scorecard of conflict-of-interest policies: a survey of U.S. medical schools. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16(1):202. doi:10.1186/s12909-016-0725-y
  37. Base transparence santé.;jsessionid=26597601D207A4E8DA579E8E8D9525DB?execution=e1s1
  38. Ethical and Deontological Charter of the Deans’ Conferences of Medicine and Odontology Schools. Formindep website. Available from:  Published 2017.
  39. Classement des facultés françaises en matière d’indépendance.  Published 2018.
  40. Wright MS, Robertson CT. Heterogeneity in IRB policies with regard to disclosures about payment for participation in recruitment materials. J Law Med Ethics. 2014;42(3):375-382. doi:10.1111/jlme.12153
  41. Resnik DB, Babson G, Dinse GE. Minor changes to previously approved research: a study of IRB policies. IRB. 2012;34(4):9-14.
  42. King M, Essick C, Bearman P, Ross JS. Medical school gift restriction policies and physician prescribing of newly marketed psychotropic medications: difference-in-differences analysis. BMJ. 2013;346:f264. doi:10.1136/bmj.f264
  43. Epstein AJ, Busch SH, Busch AB, Asch DA, Barry CL. Does exposure to conflict of interest policies in psychiatry residency affect antidepressant prescribing? Med Care. 2013;51(2):199-203. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e318277eb19
  44. Rasmussen K, Bero L, Redberg R, Gøtzsche PC, Lundh A. Collaboration between academics and industry in clinical trials: cross-sectional  study of publications and survey of lead academic authors. BMJ. 2018;363:k3654. doi:10.1136/bmj.k3654
  45. Whiting P, Wolff R, Mallett S, Simera I, Savović J. A proposed framework for developing quality assessment tools. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):204. doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0604-6
Volume 11, Issue 8
August 2022
Pages 1274-1285
  • Receive Date: 15 December 2020
  • Revise Date: 05 February 2021
  • Accept Date: 06 February 2021
  • First Publish Date: 03 March 2021