Scholarlink

<p>Technological advancements in endourology rely on close collaboration between medical expertise and industrial research. While this symbiosis is essential for medical progress, it also raises potential conflicts of interest. Using the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) as an example, this study examines various mechanisms through which industry influences scientific evidence. These include selective study design, industry-sponsored educational events, and direct financial ties between industry and medical professionals. Case studies of Aquablation (ProCePT BioRobotics, San Jose CA, USA), Rezum (Boston Scientific, Marborough, MA, USA), and UroLift® (UroLift, Pleasanton, CA, USA) illustrate how methodological peculiarities in study designs and selective endpoint choices can impact the quality of evidence. The analysis underscores the need to balance technological innovation with the preservation of scientific independence. Proposed solutions include strengthening independent research funding, systematically incorporating patient preferences, and ensuring structured follow-up of long-term outcomes.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Interessenkonflikte bei wissenschaftlichen Publikationen und mögliche Konsequenzen

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年3月10日

查看全文
  • Jonas Herrmann,
  • Christopher Netsch

摘要

Technological advancements in endourology rely on close collaboration between medical expertise and industrial research. While this symbiosis is essential for medical progress, it also raises potential conflicts of interest. Using the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) as an example, this study examines various mechanisms through which industry influences scientific evidence. These include selective study design, industry-sponsored educational events, and direct financial ties between industry and medical professionals. Case studies of Aquablation (ProCePT BioRobotics, San Jose CA, USA), Rezum (Boston Scientific, Marborough, MA, USA), and UroLift® (UroLift, Pleasanton, CA, USA) illustrate how methodological peculiarities in study designs and selective endpoint choices can impact the quality of evidence. The analysis underscores the need to balance technological innovation with the preservation of scientific independence. Proposed solutions include strengthening independent research funding, systematically incorporating patient preferences, and ensuring structured follow-up of long-term outcomes.