Academic Influence and Industry Funding in Acellular Dermal Matrix Research: A Co-authorship Network Analysis

Previous research has demonstrated correlations between quantity of acellular dermal matrix (ADM) studies published and industry payments received. The present study extends this work by employing a co-authorship network analysis to quantitatively identify a broader cohort of influential investigators in the field of ADM and analyze their financial relationships with industry.

Studies from 11 plastic surgery journals focusing on ADM were retrieved from PubMed. Author names were extracted, cleaned, and placed into an adjacency matrix to generate a co-authorship network. Degree centrality, a representation of influence within the network, was then quantified for each author. Total industry payments received from ADM-producing companies were calculated for authors with exceptional centrality, defined as >11 (95th percentile; n = 99), using the Open Payments database. Spearman's rank correlation and simple linear regression were used to analyze the relationship between centrality and payments received.

A total of 1651 authors (nodes) from 535 studies were incorporated into the network, with 9360 co-authorships (ties) between them. Ninety-nine authors attained a centrality >11. Of the 57 US-based clinicians within this cohort of 99, 49 (86%) received at least one payment from an ADM-producing company. The average total payment received for this cohort was $98,756 (SD, $262,405). The grand total for all authors was $4,839,086. Spearman correlation revealed a significant positive correlation between centrality and industry payments (ρ = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.027-0.54; P < 0.05). Simple linear regression demonstrated an estimated 18% increase in total pay per additional unit of centrality (95% CI, 5%-30%; P = 0.007).

This study examines academic influence in the realm of ADM research via a co-authorship network analysis and demonstrates a high prevalence of funding among influential authors as well as a significant relationship between centrality and payments received. These findings underscore the need for discussions concerning objectivity in clinical research, although it is uncertain whether academic influence is a target of industry or if industry support bolsters academic success.