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

[BACKGROUND] 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.

[METHODS] 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.

[RESULTS] 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).

[CONCLUSIONS] 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.