• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe

MassDevice

The Medical Device Business Journal — Medical Device News & Articles | MassDevice

  • Latest News
  • Technologies
    • Artificial Intelligence (AI)
    • Cardiovascular
    • Orthopedics
    • Neurological
    • Diabetes
    • Surgical Robotics
  • Business & Finance
    • Wall Street Beat
    • Earnings Reports
    • Funding Roundup
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Initial Public Offering (IPO)
    • Legal News
    • Personnel Moves
    • Medtech 100 Stock Index
  • Regulatory & Compliance
    • Food & Drug Administration (FDA)
    • Recalls
    • 510(k)
    • Pre-Market Approval (PMA)
    • MDSAP
    • Clinical Trials
  • Special Content
    • Special Reports
    • In-Depth Coverage
    • DeviceTalks
  • Podcasts
    • MassDevice Fast Five
    • DeviceTalks Weekly
    • OEM Talks
      • AbbottTalks
      • Boston ScientificTalks
      • DeviceTalks AI
      • IntuitiveTalks
      • MedtechWOMEN Talks
      • MedtronicTalks
      • Neuro Innovation Talks
      • Ortho Innovation Talks
      • Structural Heart Talks
      • StrykerTalks
  • Resources
    • About MassDevice
    • DeviceTalks
    • Newsletter Signup
    • Leadership in Medtech
    • Manufacturers & Suppliers Search
    • MedTech100 Index
    • Videos
    • Webinars
    • Whitepapers
    • Voices
Home » When regulators pay for peer-review

When regulators pay for peer-review

March 4, 2014 By MassDevice Contributors Network

By Westby G. Fisher, MD, FACC

Westby Fisher

The ongoing controversy among US physicians over newly-implemented "Maintenance of Certification (MOC)" requirements created by the private organization, the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) and its 24 subsidiary sub-specialty boards has breached another ethical front: paying for peer-reviewed publications in support of their expensive and proprietary MOC process.

In the Fall of 2013, the ABMS single-handedly funded an entire supplement devoted to the MOC process in the Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions. This journal is published quarterly by the Alliance of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, the Society for Academic Continuing Medical Education, and the Council on CME of the Association for Hospital Medical Education. Not surprisingly, the articles published were uniformly favorable about the MOC process despite evidence to the contrary. The American Medical Association (who also stands to benefit from the process politically) was quick to provide a free link to the full pdf of the supplement from its AMA Wire news bulletin.

Interestingly, the literature review of the MOC process performed by Lipner et al. (page S20 of the supplement) admitted the limitations of their review:

"First, we did not consider certification by other entities other than ABMS boards; these results may not generalize to other certification bodies. Second, we did not use a formal system to judge the quality of the methodology used in the studies. Third, a meta-analysis to compared effect sizes across different data types was not done; designs were extremely diverse, and it may not be possible with the information available."

Given these limitations, the "value" of the MOC process, based on the data, is totally subjective. Despite these glaring limitations, the article concludes:

The main goal of certification is physician accountability to the public (editor: note that the "patient" and "doctor" are not mentioned). We have shown that a substantial body of evidence supports the value of certification and MOC in meeting that goal but the evidence is not unequivocal. In response, the ABMS have begun to enhance their programs to be more authentic and relevant to practice while maintaining their rigor and continuing to study the program’s validity."

If the way the ABMS "enhances" the value of its proprietary MOC process is to pay for peer-reviewed publications that ignore the serious limitations mentioned by the authors themselves, then those directly impacted by the MOC process (like myself) have an obligation to question the validity and ethics of the ABMS’s self-promotional practice.

I welcome the ABMS’s response regarding their practice of paying for publications in support of the MOC process in the comment section of this blog.

-Wes

Filed Under: Blog, Food & Drug Administration (FDA), News Well, Regulatory/Compliance

More recent news

  • Comphya raises CHF 7.5 million for neurostim to treat ED
  • Fujifilm launches intelligent automation features for digital radiography
  • Integer appoints former iRhythm CEO to board
  • MMI debuts robotic surgery instruments, digital surgery platform
  • Synchrony Medical wins FDA nod for airway clearance system

Primary Sidebar

“md
EXPAND YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND STAY CONNECTED
Get the latest med device regulatory, business and technology news.

DeviceTalks Weekly

See More >

MEDTECH 100 Stock INDEX

Medtech 100 logo
Market Summary > Current Price
The MedTech 100 is a financial index calculated using the BIG100 companies covered in Medical Design and Outsourcing.
MDO ad

Footer

MASSDEVICE MEDICAL NETWORK

DeviceTalks
Drug Delivery Business News
Medical Design & Outsourcing
Medical Tubing + Extrusion
Drug Discovery & Development
Pharmaceutical Processing World
MedTech 100 Index
R&D World
Medical Design Sourcing

DeviceTalks Webinars, Podcasts, & Discussions

Attend our Monthly Webinars
Listen to our Weekly Podcasts
Join our DeviceTalks Tuesdays Discussion

MASSDEVICE

Subscribe to MassDevice E-Newsletter
Advertise with us
About
Contact us

Copyright © 2025 · WTWH Media LLC and its licensors. All rights reserved.
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of WTWH Media.

Privacy Policy