Is There an Association between Industry Payments and the Reported Results after Nerve Repair Using Conduits or...

Area of Science:

• Orthopedics
• Neurosurgery
• Biomaterials

Background:

• Peripheral nerve repair frequently utilizes nerve conduits and allografts.
• Many studies are industry-funded and of low quality, potentially influencing results.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate the association between industry funding and reported outcomes in peripheral nerve repair studies.
• To assess potential publication bias in research on nerve conduits and allografts.

Main Methods:

• A systematic review of 41 studies (2012-2024) on nerve conduits/allografts, assessing outcomes like MRCC, s2PD, and SWMF.
• Extracted nerve-related payments for authors from the Open Payments Database (2013-2022).
• Analyzed study quality, design (retrospective/non-comparative prevalence), and funding sources.

Main Results:

• Studies with higher industry payments ($>20,000) were more likely to report favorable outcomes (e.g., higher meaningful recovery, better s2PD).
• 89% of studies with <70% meaningful recovery received <$20,000, versus 28% with ≥70% recovery.
• 100% of studies with s2PD ≥13 mm received <$20,000, compared to 27% with s2PD <13 mm.

Conclusions:

• Greater industry funding correlates with more favorable reported outcomes in peripheral nerve repair research.
• Potential publication bias exists, necessitating critical evaluation of industry-funded studies.
• Surgeons and patients should consider funding sources when interpreting evidence on nerve repair options.