The Virginia Tech Response

Annals of Biomedical Engineering, Dec 2012

Steven Rowson, Stefan M. Duma

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10439-012-0660-y.pdf

The Virginia Tech Response

STEVEN ROWSON 0 1 STEFAN M. DUMA 0 1 0 cal Engineering and Sciences , Virginia Tech - Wake Forest Univer- sity, Blacksburg, VA, USA . Electronic mail: 1 School of Biomedical Engineering and Sciences, Virginia Tech - Wake Forest University , Blacksburg, VA, USA We believe that Dr. Albert King's letter regarding the STAR system paper22 is not scientifically based, factually incorrect, and illustrates that he does not understand the STAR system's methodology. All of our research from Virginia Tech on this subject has been peer reviewed and published in open journals. In contrast, Dr. King bases his comments on a single reference to an internal graduate student thesis that has not been peer reviewed, has not been published in a journal, and which is not publicly available. This is not how the scientific process works. While studying our comments, we ask the reader to keep in mind that all of this debate comes down to a very simple question: do you want to buy a helmet that reduces head acceleration? The STAR system is a complex experimental methodology that combines exposure and injury risk based on current scientific knowledge. Simply stated, it provides independent data to consumers to illustrate which helmets lower head acceleration. - DR. KINGS APPARENT SUBSTANTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST In order to understand the severity of Dr. Kings apparent conflict of interest, it is important to understand the entire timeline of our STAR paper relative to his letter to the editor. In May 2011, we published the STAR paper, after a 3-month open response period, and after full peer-review in the Annals of Biomedical Engineering (ABME). During this process, and for the entire next year, Dr. King did not submit any letters to ABME, nor did he submit any questions or comments to us regarding this paper. Once he submitted his letter, we contacted Dr. King, but he refused to discuss his letter or any potential conflicts. In order to gain clarity, Virginia Tech was forced to file a Freedom of Information Act request with Wayne State University so that we could document the following timeline, contracts, and statements. In May 2012, at the request of lawyers working for Xenith (a helmet manufacturer), a consulting company emailed experts around the country looking to retain anyone who would critique the STAR paper. This email stated that the Xenith helmet did not fare well in the ratings. They sent this email to Dr. King on May 9, 2012, and he responded to them within 2 h saying it was a pleasure talking with you, and he forwarded his CV. On May 17, 2012, Dr. King signed a contract with them entitled Xenith LLC Consulting which summarized the agreement that he would be paid $400/h and all reasonable expenses for his critique of the STAR paper. Over the next several weeks, Dr. King filled out time sheets recording his consulting hours as he prepared his report for this company. On June 17, 2012, Dr. King produced a draft report on Albert I. King Inc letterhead entitled Review of the STAR Report by Rowson and Duma. A few days later on June 21, 2012, Dr. King submitted a letter to the Editor of ABME that was virtually identical to this draft report. Dr. King provided no disclosure of any conflicts of interest in this letter. The next day and while the letter was under review, Xenith began nationally distributing a report from Dr. King, also dated June 21, 2012, that was virtually identical to his letter to the Editor of ABME. This report also does not include any disclosure of any conflicts of interest. On June 25, 2012, based on concerns raised about potential conflict of interest issues, Dr. King was specifically asked by the Editor of ABME to provide any disclosures related to this work, in terms of retainers etc. from lawyers as well as companies. Dr. King responded I received no personal compensation from anyone for writing this letter to the editor. For a second time, Dr. King did not disclose any relationship or potential conflict of interest, even when directly asked by the Editor. On June 29, 2012, Dr. King was informed that ABME had a copy of the May 2012 email request from a company representing Xeniths lawyers, as well as a copy of his June 21, 2012 report that Xenith was distributing and which was effectively identical to his letter. Because of potential copyright issues, Dr. King was asked to write a different letter. He was also asked to complete a much more detailed conflict of interest form. This form specifically stated that Dr. King must report all sources of revenue paid (or promised to be paid)from sources with relevance to the submitted work. On July 19, 2012, Dr. King submitted his revised letter with a new story about his conflict of interest. In this disclosure Dr. King states that I was originally asked by Xenith Corp to write a written review of the paper in question with remuneration. As the consulting story unfolded, we contacted Dr. King directly and informed him that we were aware of this se (...truncated)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10439-012-0660-y.pdf

Steven Rowson, Stefan M. Duma. The Virginia Tech Response, Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 2012, pp. 2512-2518, Volume 40, Issue 12, DOI: 10.1007/s10439-012-0660-y