We look to doctors for help with whatever ails us, and we count on the fact that in interest of objectivity, they are unbiased in their choices for how they treat us and in regards to how they inform the public of the latest news and technology relevant to their field.

It appears, however, that this may not always be the case. In fact, a recent article in the Archives of Internal Medicine has revealed that there are significant issues with how physicians disclose their relationships with the medical industry. This can possibly lead to a conflict of interest and may compromise a doctors objectivity when reporting on a product.

According to the study, of the surgeons who received at least $1 million in payments from orthopedic device companies, almost half did not report this relationship in their published papers. In other words, the public is clearly not being informed of a potential conflict of interest, particularly when there are large sums of money involved.

The study is the first of its kind to look at the accuracy of how information is disclosed in medical journals. The manufacturing companies were diligent in reporting the amount of money they paid out to consultants in the public database. Yet when this information was compared to financial disclosure information listed in medical journals, there were serious gaps in terms of reporting income.

In the study in question, researchers focused on orthopedic device companies that made payments in the amount of $248 million for consulting, honoraria, or payment for other services. Attention was focused on these consultants due to the large sums of money involved, including, in certain instances, payments to surgeons in the range of $1 million to as much as $8.8 million.

The researchers then looked at the body of articles published by these doctors and discovered that after they had received their payments, less than half of them indicated in their articles that they had a relationship with the company that made the product that was, in most cases, being described in their research article. None of the articles indicated the amount of money that was involved, and though the study focused on orthopedics, other studies suggest that the situation applies to other specialties.

This, of course, can compromise the integrity and objectivity of the research. Medical journals themselves generally do not go to great lengths to search for payment information, but rather rely on the honor system and expect study authors to provide accurate and complete information about any financial arrangements.

When this does not occur, it can seriously call into question the credibility of the findings. It also compromises the body of information available to physicians because these journal articles can be used as guidelines in how doctors treat patients. With this in mind, the public has a right to know of any circumstances that could influence the decisions a doctor makes regarding their health.

The authors of the study indicate that medical journals may need to step up their efforts to check for any possible sources of bias in the reporting, and that the public should be aware. With the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act under the new health reform law, manufacturers will have to report payments to physicians in a searchable database by the year 2013.

For more information about the legislation, visit the website for HealthCare.gov.