Healthy Skepticism Library item: 15313

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: news

Armstrong D.
JAMA Sets New Policy in Wake of Disclosure Flap
The Wall Street Journal Health Blog 2009 Mar 23
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/03/23/jama-sets-new-policy-in-wake-of-disclosure-flap/

Notes:

Statement by Prof Leo here:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/leo_statement_for_WSJ.htm

Full text:

In the course of a week, Jonathan Leo (pictured) has gone from a “nobody and a nothing” to “somebody doing something very important.”

Leo, a professor of neuro-anatomy at Lincoln Memorial University in Harrogate, Tenn., faced criticism from editors at the Journal of the American Medical Association when he published a letter in another medical journal, BMJ, that highlighted an unreported conflict of interest in a study published by JAMA.

When JAMA editor in chief Catherine DeAngelis was asked about Leo by the WSJ Health Blog on March 12, she expressed her displeasure with him. “This guy is a nobody and a nothing” she said of Leo. “He is trying to make a name for himself. Please call me about something important.” Read the posting here.

A week later, DeAngelis and her top deputy published an online editorial. In it, they say the “nobody and a nothing” comment “was erroneously reported” and that Leo “certainly is somebody doing something very important.” Neither DeAngelis nor anyone at JAMA has complained to The Wall Street Journal that the quote was inaccurate.

The editorial, however, scolds Leo for publishing his letter in the BMJ before JAMA weighed in on the matter. In addition, the editorial says JAMA contacted the dean at Leo’s medical school in an attempt to apply pressure from above. Leo gives his rely in a statement here.

As a result of the flap, JAMA says it is adopting a new policy under which anyone asserting that study authors have failed to disclose conflicts of interest should keep the matter confidential until JAMA investigates, the WSJ reports. That move is already generating controversy.