Abstract
Background: Cryolipolysis has emerged as a nonsurgical fat reduction alternative to liposuction. Industry payments may impact how physician authors view medical devices in the literature. Under-reporting financial conflicts of interest has raised concerns about full transparency between industry and physicians. Objectives: We aim to determine the impact industry payments to physicians have on the cryolipolysis literature and whether there is under-reporting of financial conflicts of interest in the literature. Methods: We collated all articles that cite the pivotal trial in the Food and Drug Administration approval of a cryolipolysis device. Articles were read independently and coded as favourable or neutral. A separate researcher screened the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database for direct or in-kind payments and recorded financial conflicts of interest. Results: A total of 19 articles met the inclusion criteria. This included 37 unique authors across multiple specialties. Eighteen (95%) published articles had at least one author who received industry payment. Payments totalled $1,476,564.16. Twelve (63%) articles were positive, and 7 (37%) neutral. Of the 31 authors who received payments, 11 (35%) did not report a conflict of interest. The majority of industry payments assessed were for consulting fees, which totalled $980,334.86 (66.4%). Conclusions: We found the majority of published opinions on cryolipolysis from the United States were written by physicians who received industry payments. We also found financial conflicts of interest around cryolipolysis devices are under-reported in the literature.