This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
We thank Dr. Sethi for the comment on our review of the 2015 Open Payments database.1 We agree that the Open Payments policy does not differentiate between potential and actual conflicts clearly, and may result in misinterpretation by patients and the public. However, resolution of perceived conflict is as important as that of actual conflict.2 The difficulty is in recognizing the difference between perceived and actual conflicts, and to make this distinction clear when reported publicly. Dr. Sethi suggests an interesting method. The question is: Can we dispassionately and accurately recognize our own conflicts of interest? Second, if the onus of reporting is on clinicians, how much burden will that add to the multifaceted and demanding reporting burden that is already affecting time spent on patient care, education, and research? Input from clinicians, the pharmaceutical industry, regulatory bodies, patients, and the public should be used to develop and test optimal methods for reporting and resolving conflicts of interest without misrepresentation, while providing adequate information for patients and the public to understand the conflict and its potential relevance to them.
Footnotes
Author disclosures are available upon request (journal{at}neurology.org).
- © 2019 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
