The June 2011 issue of The Spine Journal accusing researchers of less than honest work because of alleged payments to researchers by Medtronic, Inc., was controversial enough to cause then outgoing North American Spine Society (NASS) President Greg Przybylski, M.D. to devote a substantial part of his farewell address to the subject. Przybylski praised the work of the journal’s editor-in-chief, but distanced the society from the controversy by noting that the journal was owned, operated and controlled by Elsevier Publications.
NASS Review of Spine Journal Controversy
1 min read Premium comments
Secondary
We learned at the recent Spine Technology and Education Group meeting, hosted by Frank Phillips, M.D., Todd Albert, M.D. and Alex Vaccaro, M.D., that the spine society has undergone a review of the June edition. We understand that the internal inquiry involved a review of the process the journal undertook as, Eugene Carragee, M.D., editor-in-chief of the publication, temporarily stepped aside as editor to author the controversial accusations.
We emailed NASS Executive Director Eric Muehlbauer to confirm the existence of the review and ask when the findings of the inquiry would be made available.
Muehlbauer was unavailable for comment, but a society spokeswoman emailed us with the following response:
…whenever we have something to share with our members, we publish it in SpineLine. If it was something for patients, the public or lawmakers, we have vehicles, such as news releases or statements, for that, as well.
We followed up and asked if this was confirmation that a review had taken place? We have not received a reply.
We hope that NASS, (or Elsevier the owner of The Spine Journal), make any findings as transparent and publicly available as soon as possible. An independent Yale review of the clinical evidence gathered by Medtronic for the product at the center of the controversy, InFuse, is expected by the end of summer.
Given the high level of anxiety demonstrated by NASS members at the Town Hall Meeting during their last annual meeting over “who to trust”, full and timely disclosure is paramount to restoring trust with patients, payers, researchers and, most importantly, surgeons.
React:
Discussion
This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?
Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.
We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.
Join the conversation
Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.