Psychedelics are a group of psychoactive substances which produce complex and subjective changes to consciousness and carry unique safety considerations. There is a growing body of work investigating the use of psychedelics for mental health treatment alongside increasing socio-cultural and political acceptance. This rapid evolution has prompted corporations to fund psychedelic clinical trials, leading to a potential rise in conflicts of interest in relevant studies and publications. However, the body of evidence for the safety and efficacy of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy for psychiatric illnesses is early. There is concern regarding the introduction of bias in psychedelic clinical trials and the selective reporting of results amidst and beyond corporate involvement. At a crucial time in psychedelic drug reform, this paper explores the safety concerns associated with psychedelics, the potential influences of financial stakeholders on safety outcome reporting and the importance of balanced science communication in maintaining public health and safety.

BACKGROUND: The integrity of medical research reporting in online news publications is crucial for informed healthcare decisions and public health discourse. However, omissions, lack of transparency, and the rapid spread of misinformation on digital and social media platforms can lead to an incomplete or inaccurate understanding of research findings. This study aims to analyze the fidelity of online news in reporting medical research findings, focusing on conflicts of interest, study limitations, statistical data, and research conclusions.
METHODS: Fifty randomized controlled trials published in major medical journals and their corresponding news reports were evaluated for the inclusion of conflicts of interest, study limitations, and inferential statistics in the news reports. The alignment of conclusions was evaluated. A binomial test with a Bonferroni correction was used to assess the inclusion rate of these variables against a 90% threshold.
RESULTS: Conflicts of interest were reported in 10 (20%) of news reports, study limitations in 14 (28%), and inferential statistics in 19 (38%). These rates were significantly lower than the 90% threshold (p<0.001). Research conclusions aligned in 43 (86%) cases, which was not significantly different from 90% (p=0.230). Misaligned conclusions resulted from overstating claims.
CONCLUSIONS: Significant gaps exist in the reporting of critical contextual information in medical news articles. Adopting a structured reporting format could enhance the quality and transparency of medical research communication. Collaboration among journalists, news organizations, and medical researchers is crucial for establishing and promoting best practices, fostering informed public discourse, and better health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Conflicts of interest inherent in industry funding can bias medical research methods, outcomes, reporting and clinical applications. This study explored the extent of funding provided to American physician researchers studying surgical mesh used to treat uterine prolapse or stress urinary incontinence, and whether that funding was declared by researchers or influenced the ethical integrity of resulting publications in peer reviewed journals.
METHODS: Publications identified via a Pubmed search (2014-2021) of the terms mesh and pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence and with at least one US physician author were reviewed. Using the CMS Open Payments database industry funding received by those MDs in the year before, of and after publication was recorded, as were each study\'s declarations of funding and 14 quality measures.
RESULTS: Fifty-three of the 56 studies reviewed had at least one American MD author who received industry funding in the year of, or one year before or after publication. For 47 articles this funding was not declared. Of 247 physician authors, 60% received > $100 while 13% received $100,000-$1,000,000 of which approximately 60% was undeclared. While 57% of the studies reviewed explicitly concluded that mesh was safe, only 39% of outcomes supported this. Neither the quality indicator of follow-up duration nor overall statements as to mesh safety varied with declaration status.
CONCLUSIONS: Journal editors\' guidelines re declaring conflicts of interest are not being followed. Financial involvement of industry in mesh research is extensive, often undeclared, and may shape the quality of, and conclusions drawn, resulting in overstated benefit and overuse of pelvic mesh in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol industry organisations occupy a prominent position in UK alcohol policy, but their involvement has been contested by public health bodies on the basis that a conflict of interest (COI) exists between their economic objectives and those of public health. There are ongoing debates in the research literature about how to conceptualise COI and mitigate this in health research and practise. However, less attention has been paid to these issues in relation to the alcohol industry specifically. This article explores similarities and differences in beliefs among alcohol policy actors regarding COI and the implications of engagement with the alcohol industry in the context of UK public health policy.
METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with a range of policy actors (n=26) including medical professionals, parliamentarians, civil servants, academic researchers, health campaigners, and alcohol industry representatives. Interviews with alcohol industry representatives were supplemented with an analysis of industry responses to a public consultation. All data was thematically coded using NVivo software.
RESULTS: Two competing \"coalitions\" were identified, expressing beliefs about COI linked to alcohol industry engagement. Both divergent and convergent beliefs were expressed by the two coalitions in relation to the type of industry actor, form of engagement, the policy issue under discussion and the stage of policy process.
CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol policy is a complex and contested space in which policy actors have differing, nuanced and contingent understandings of COI and identify varying risks associated with alcohol industry engagement. In identifying the areas of convergence and diversion in both understanding and evaluation of COI in alcohol-specific settings, these findings will assist both decision-makers and non-governmental actors in developing policies and guidelines to manage potential COI in future.

In the ever-evolving landscape of biomedical research and publishing, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations serve as a critical framework for maintaining ethical standards. By providing a framework that adapts to technological advancements, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations actively shape responsible and transparent practices, ensuring the integrity of scientific inquiry and fostering global collaboration in the ever-evolving landscape of medical publishing. This editorial delves into key aspects of the latest changes in the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations, focusing on authorship, conflict of interest disclosure, data sharing and reproducibility, medical publishing and carbon emissions, the use of artificial intelligence, and the challenges posed by predatory journals within the realm of open access. It emphasizes the importance of new recommendations, which represent a beacon of ethical guidance in the ever-evolving domain of biomedical research and publishing.

The objective of this scoping review was to systematically review the literature on how non-financial conflicts of interest (nfCOI) are defined and evaluated, and the strategies suggested for their management in health-related and biomedical journals. PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for peer reviewed studies published in English between 1970 and December 2023 that addressed at least one of the following: the definition, evaluation, or management of non-financial conflicts of interest. From 658 studies, 190 studies were included in the review. nfCOI were discussed most commonly in empirical (22%; 42/190), theoretical (15%; 29/190) and \"other\" studies (18%; 34/190) - including commentary, perspective, and opinion articles. nfCOI were addressed frequently in the research domain (36%; 68/190), publication domain (29%; 55/190) and clinical practice domain (17%; 32/190). Attitudes toward nfCOI and their management were divided into two distinct groups. The first larger group claimed that nfCOI were problematic and required some form of management, whereas the second group argued that nfCOI were not problematic, and therefore, did not require management. Despite ongoing debates about the nature, definition, and management of nfCOI, many articles included in this review agreed that serious consideration needs to be given to the prevalence, impact and optimal mitigation of non-financial COI.

Nudging, a controversial technique for modifying people\'s behavior in a predictable way, is claimed to preserve freedom of choice while simultaneously influencing it. Nudging had been largely confined to situations such as promoting healthy eating choices but has been employed in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis in a shift towards measures that involve significantly less choice, such as shoves and behavioral prods. Shared decision making (SDM), a method for direct involvement and autonomy, is an alternative approach to communicate risk. Predominantly peer-reviewed scientific publications from standard literature databases like PubMed, PsycInfo, and Psyndex were evaluated in a narrative review. The so-called fear nudges, as well as the dissemination of strongly emotionalizing or moralizing messages can lead to intense psycho-physical stress. The use of these nudges by specialized units during the COVID-19 pandemic generated a societal atmosphere of fear that precipitated a deterioration of the mental and physical health of the population. Major recommendations of the German COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO) study, which are based on elements of nudging and coercive measures, do not comply with ethical principles, basic psychological principles, or evidence-based data. SDM was misused in the COVID-19 crisis, which helped to achieve one-sided goals of governments. The emphasis on utilitarian thinking is criticized and the unethical behavior of decision makers is explained by both using the concept of moral disengagement and the maturity level of coping strategies. There should be a return to an open-ended, democratic, and pluralistic scientific debate without using nudges. It is therefore necessary to return to the origins of SDM.

OBJECTIVE: We have previously described the European Medicines Agency\'s (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration\'s guidelines, each for a specific psychiatric indication, on how to design pivotal drug trials used in new drug applications. Here, we report on our efforts over 3 years to retrieve conflicts of interest declarations from EMA. We wanted to assess potential internal industry influence judged as the proportion of guideline committee members with industry conflicts of interest.
METHODS: We submitted Freedom of Information requests in February 2020 to access EMA\'s lists of committee members (and their declared conflicts of interest) involved in drafting the 13 \'Clinical efficacy and safety\' guidelines available on EMA\'s website pertaining to psychiatric indications. In our request, we did not specify the exact EMA committees. Here, we describe the received documents and report the proportion of members with industry interests (i.e. defined as any financial industry relationship). It is a follow-up paper to our first report (http://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796021000147).
RESULTS: After 2 years and 9 months (November 2022), the EMA sent us member lists and corresponding conflicts of interest declarations from the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human use (CHMP) from 2012, 2013 and 2017. These member lists pertained to 3 of the 13 requested guidelines (schizophrenia, depression and autism spectrum disorder). The 10 remaining guidelines were published before 2011 and EMA stated that they needed to require permission from their expert members (with unknown retrieval rate) and foresaw excessive workload and long wait. Therefore, we withdrew our request. The CHMPs from 2012, 2013 and 2017 had from 34 to 36 members; 39%-44% declared any interests and we judged 14%-18% as having industry interests. For the schizophrenia guideline, we identified two members with industry interests to companies who submitted feedback on the guideline. We did not receive declarations from the Central Nervous System (CNS) Working Party, the CHMP appointed expert group responsible for drafting and incorporating feedback into the guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS: After almost 3 years, we received information, which only partly addressed our request. We recommend EMA to improve transparency by publishing the author names and their corresponding conflicts of interest declarations directly in the \'Clinical efficacy and safety\' guidelines and to not remove conflicts of interest declarations after 1 year from their website to reduce the risk of stealth corporate influence during the development of these influential guidelines.

UNASSIGNED: Robotic total knee arthroplasty (R-TKA) utilization and marketing continue to rise. We examined the marketing on surgeon websites regarding R-TKA benefits and sought to determine if the claims were supported by existing literature.
UNASSIGNED: A Google search identified 10 physician websites from each of the 5 largest U.S. markets by population with the term \"robotic total knee arthroplasty city, state.\" Claims on websites about R-TKA were categorized. Literature from 2012-2022 was reviewed for data \"for\" or \"against\" each claim. Level of evidence for each publication was collected.
UNASSIGNED: Fifty websites were captured that included 59 surgeons. A specific R-TKA platform was mentioned on 68% of websites. Website claims about robotics were placed into 8 major categories. Literature review supported the claims of more precise/accurate, reduced injury to tissue, and less pain with more literature \"for\" than \"against\" the claims.
UNASSIGNED: Claims made on physician websites regarding the benefits of R-TKA are variable and not definitively supported by existing literature. Most available data can be categorized into levels of evidence III, IV, and V. There is a paucity of level I evidence to support the various marketing statements. Physicians should be cognizant of both the claims made on their websites and the literature that could be used to support or refute those specific claims.

Financial interactions between pharmaceutical companies and physicians lead to conflicts of interest. This study examines the extent and trends of non-research payments made by pharmaceutical companies to board-certified allergists in Japan between 2016 and 2020.
A retrospective analysis of disclosed payment data from pharmaceutical companies affiliated with the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association was conducted. The study focused on non-research payments for lecturing, consulting, and manuscript drafting made to board-certified allergists from 2016 to 2020. We performed descriptive analyses on payment data. Trends were analyzed using generalized estimating equation models.
Of the 3,943 board-certified allergists, 2,398 (60.8%) received non-research payments totaling $43.4 million over five years. Lecturing fees comprised 85.7% ($37.2 million) of the total payment amounts. For allergists who received at least one payment, the median amount per allergist was $3,106 (interquartile range: $966 - $12,124), in contrast to a mean of $18,092 (standard deviation: $49,233) over the five-year span. The top 1% and 10% of these allergists accounted for 20.8% and 68.8% of all non-research payments, respectively. The annual payment amounts significantly increased by 7.2% annual increase (95% CI: 4.4 - 10.0%, p < 0.001) each year until 2019, but saw a significant decrease in 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
The majority of allergists received non-research payments, with a notable concentration among a small group. Payments increased annually until the pandemic\'s onset, which coincided with a substantial decrease. Further research is needed to explore the implications of these financial interactions on clinical practice and patient care in Japan.