Cases concerning conflicts of interest

Sources and current guidance checked: 11 October 2026
This is an English overview of selected historical examples. The Japanese page contains the detailed case descriptions.

Japanese detailed coverage: 2 groups from the FY2019–FY2025 reported-case index are now explained in Japanese on this topic page, alongside 4 earlier entries (6 total). The English version continues to provide selected summaries. All 132 groups across the five topics link to detailed Japanese commentary through the annual index.

Complete annual reported-case index (FY2019–FY2025; 132 groups): the index links every group to its corresponding detailed Japanese commentary.

Browse by report year: FY2020（1） ／ FY2019（1） ／ FY2016–FY2018

How to read these cases

This page combines earlier FY2016–FY2018 examples with 2 selected additions from FY2019, FY2020 reports published by MHLW. They concern reported questions about promotional practice and are not presented as court findings. Product information, doses and restrictions in the historical descriptions reflect the circumstances at the time; check current approved information before using them. See PMDA prescription-drug information search (Japanese) for current product documents.

Added examples from later reports (2)

Years identify the reports, not necessarily when the events occurred. These are selected summaries. Review points are the author's observations, separate from report findings. Source links specify the corresponding PDF page.

FY2020 report

Missing webinar disclosures

Report summary: Speakers reportedly omitted conflict disclosures in a manufacturer-hosted webinar because the manufacturer had not requested them, prompting concerns in the report.

Author's review point: Specify disclosure requirements when commissioning talks and verify the final presentation.

Source: FY2020 report (Japanese), printed p. 37; case ⑦-1; PDF page 41

FY2019 report

Unreadable conflict-of-interest disclosure

Report summary: A speaker's sponsor-related conflict disclosure flashed too briefly during online sleep-drug training for participants to read, according to the report.

Author's review point: Check disclosure readability, including font size and display duration, before release.

Source: FY2019 report (Japanese), printed p. 49; case ⑦-1; PDF page 53

Earlier selected examples (FY2016–FY2018)

Video and presentation disclosures

A video and slides cited papers without displaying relevant conflicts, including a paid advisory relationship in one case.

Company involvement in a cited paper

A brochure omitted company funding and an author’s company employment described in the cited literature.

Company-employed authors

A company website used papers without identifying relevant company employment relationships.

Points for current review and training

• Check the paper’s conflict disclosures, funding, acknowledgements and author affiliations.
• Check the disclosure of company support required by the MHLW promotional-information guideline.
• Payment transparency and disclosure in promotional material have different purposes and requirements; assess each separately.

See the MHLW guideline of 25 September 2018 (Japanese) and the official guideline and Q&A index (Japanese) for the complete requirements.

See also Disclosure of payments to healthcare professionals and organizations.

Earlier sources and the latest survey

• Historical monitoring report: FY2016 / March 2017 (Japanese)
• Historical monitoring report: FY2017 / March 2018 (Japanese)
• Historical monitoring report: FY2018 / March 2019 (Japanese)
• Latest published survey: FY2025, March 2026 (Japanese)
• MHLW advertising regulation and annual reports (Japanese)

Survey overview and latest results / Guide to promotional-information requirements