Skip to main content

Relationships Between Industry and Academic Surgery Departments: Where Is the Pendulum Now?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Success in Academic Surgery: Innovation and Entrepreneurship

Part of the book series: Success in Academic Surgery ((SIAS))

  • 392 Accesses

Abstract

Innovation in academic medical centers is a national asset and a crucial pathway for improving patient care. Meaningful interactions with industry are essential to develop and refine new technologies, produce them in scale, and shepherd them through the rigorous regulatory processes. Without the marketing and sales support of device and pharmaceutical companies, even meritorious inventions and molecules would not make the kind of positive impact on outcomes that our patients deserve. Delivering better patient care and outcomes confers a broad positive effect whereby the patient, the inventor, the hospital, the community, the manufacturer, and the insurer all benefit. While there will always be potential conflicts of both effort and interest, we continue to believe these can best be addressed through thoughtful accommodations in a spirit of compromise.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Raad I, Darouiche R, Dupuis J, et al. Central venous catheters coated with minocycline and rifampin for the prevention of catheter-related colonization and bloodstream infections. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:267–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hanna HA, Radd II, Hackett B, et al. Antibiotic-impregnated catheters associated with significant decrease in nosocomial and multidrug-resistant bacteremias in critically ill patients. Chest. 2003;124:1030–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bonne S, Mazuski JE, Sona C, et al. Effectiveness of minocycline and rifampin vs chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine-impregnated central venous catheters in preventing central line-associated bloodstream infection in a high-volume academic intensive care unit: a before and after trial. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;221:739–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Darouiche RO, Raad II, Heard SO, et al. A comparison of two antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. USPTO patent number 5217493.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cooper T, Ainsberg A. Breakthrough: Elizabeth Hughes, the discovery of insulin and the making of a medical miracle: St. Marten’s Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  7. https://www.seniorliving.org/history/1900-2000-changes-life-expectancy-united-states/. Accessed 31 Oct 18.

  8. Brennan TA, Rothman D, Blank L, et al. Health industry practices that create conflicts of interest. JAMA. 2006;295(4):429–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Korn D, Carlat D. Conflicts of interest in medical education. JAMA. 2004;310:2397–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. ACCME Standards for commercial support. https://www.accme.org/publications/accme-standards-for-commercial-support. Accessed 31 Oct 18.

  11. https://cmss.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/CMSS-Code-for-Interactions-with-Companies-Approved-Revised-Version-4.13.15-with-Annotations.pdff. Accessed 31 Oct 18.

  12. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1216459. Accessed 31 Oct 18.

  13. Lichtenberg F. The impact of biomedical innovation on longevity and health. Nordic J Healt Econ. 2017;5:45–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Anderson B, Lowenstein G, Schulkin J, et al. Factors associated with physicians’ reliance on pharmaceutical sales representatives. Acad Med. 2009;84:994–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Korenstein D, Salomeh K, Ross J. Physicians attitudes toward industry. Arch Surg. 2010;145(6):570–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Austad KE, Avorn J, Kesselheim AS. Medical students’ exposure to and attitudes about the pharmaceutical industry: a systematic review. PLoS Med. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001037. Accessed 31 Oct 18. 2011;8:e1001037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rothman KJ. Conflict of interest: the new McCarthyism in science. JAMA. 1993;269:2782–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Stossel TP. Pharmaphobia: Rowman & Littlefield; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rosenbaum L. Reconnecting the dots-reinterpreting industry-physician relations. NEJM. 2015;372:1860–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ng T, Mirocha J, Magner D, Gewertz BL. Regional variations in the utilization of endovascular aneurysm repair reflect population risk factors and disease prevalence. J Vasc Surg. 2010;51:801–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Thal AP, Quick KL. A guided chest tube for safe thoracostomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1988;167:517.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ciaglia P, Firsching R, Syniec C. Elective percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy. A new simple bedside procedure; preliminary report. Chest. 1985;87:715–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Fuhrman BP, Landrum BG, Ferrara TB, et al. Pleural drainage using modified pigtail catheters. Crit Care Med. 1986;14:575–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lock JE, Bass JL, Kulil TJ, et al. Chronic percutaneous drainage with modified pigtail catheters in children. Am J Cardiol. 1984;53:1179–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Sargent EN, Turner F. Emergency treatment of pneumothorax. Am J Roentgenol Rad Therapy Nuclear Med. 1970;109:531–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Ross McKinney, MD, personal communication. Accessed 31 Oct 18.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Fontarosa PB, Flanigan A, DeAngelis CD. Reporting conflicts of interest, financial aspects of research, and role of sponsors in funded studies. JAMA. 2005;294:110–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bauchner H. Editorial policies for clinical trials and the continued changes in medical journalism. JAMA. 2013;310(2):149–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. https://www.policymed.com/2010/06/aha-ban-on-industry-posters-and-presenters-conflict-of-interest-run-amuck.html. Accessed 31 Oct 18.

  30. http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/1998/murad-autobio.html, https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1998/murad/auto-biography. Accessed 31 Oct 18.

Download references

Conflicts of Interest

The ideas and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and may not reflect, in whole or in part, the position of Cook Medical Holdings, LLC.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruce L. Gewertz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gingles, B., Gewertz, B.L. (2019). Relationships Between Industry and Academic Surgery Departments: Where Is the Pendulum Now?. In: Cohen, M., Kao, L. (eds) Success in Academic Surgery: Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Success in Academic Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18613-5_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18613-5_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-18612-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-18613-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics