This study has been published in the British Medical Journal. The abstract says:
“Objective: To assess the extent and types of financial ties to industry of panel and task force members of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, text revision (DSM-5-TR), published in 2022.
Design: Cross sectional analysis.
Setting: Open Payments database, USA.
Participants: 92 physicians based in the US who served as members of either a panel (n=86) or task force (n=6) on the DSM-5-TR with information recorded in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database during 2016-19. This period was chosen to include the year that development of the DSM-5-TR began and the three years preceding, a time consistent with previous research on conflicts of interest and consistent with the American Psychiatric Association’s disclosure requirements for the fifth revision (DSM-5) of the manual.
Main outcome measures: Type and amount of compensation the panel and task force members of DSM-5-TR received during 2016-19.
Results: After duplicate names had been removed, 168 individuals were identified who served as either panel or task force members of the DSM-5-TR. 92 met the inclusion criteria of being a physician who was based in the US and therefore could be included in Open Payments. Of these 92 individuals, 55 (60%) received payments from industry. Collectively, these panel members received a total of $14.2m (£11.2m; €13m). One third (33.3%) of the task force members had payments reported in Open Payments.
Conclusions: Conflicts of interest among panel members of DSM-5-TR were prevalent. Because of the enormous influence of diagnostic and treatment guidelines, the standards for participation on a guideline development panel should be high. A rebuttable presumption should exist for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to prohibit conflicts of interest among its panel and task force members. When no independent individuals with the requisite expertise are available, individuals with associations to industry could consult to the panels, but they should not have decision making authority on revisions or the inclusion of new disorders.”
You can read the full study from here.
