corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 2474

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: Journal Article

Davidoff F.
Between the lines: Navigating the uncharted territory of industry-sponsored research: A former medical journal editor describes how and why staff changed their policy on disclosing conflicts of interest.
Health Affairs 2002 Mar-Apr; 21:(2):235-242
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/429526


Abstract:

In 1995 the report of a large industry-supported drug trial submitted to the Annals of Internal Medicine forced a rethink of journal policy on disclosing conflicts of interest. Although the report acknowledged sponsorship, it did not state the sponsor’s involvement in and control over research being done by an ‘independent’ investigator. The editors concluded that they had an obligation to improve disclosure of conflicts of interest and other nontechnical factors that could affect research conduct and reporting. There are similarities between clinical research and continuing medical education (CME). Both involve three main entities: (1) the research project or educational program, (2) the researchers or CME faculty, and (3) the readers or CME attendees. Drug companies are required to demonstrate both safety and efficacy of drugs, which is demanding and expensive, potentially causing tension between independent researchers and sponsors. The Annals’ new policy asked authors to disclose details of the sponsor’s role in the study. It also requested information about financial interests ‘dual commitment’ in the manuscript itself so that reviewers were aware of it. Since 1997, the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals have changed significantly along the lines of those adopted by the Annals. Disclosure is a powerful tool, but it is a surrogate for scientific truth, and it has no real teeth. It can be self-defeating if it requires excessive bureaucracy and generates irrelevant information. Nevertheless, disclosure is an important measure of social control in clinical research.

Keywords:
*analysis United States relationship with pharmaceutical industry conflict-of-interest dual commitment continuing medical education ETHICAL ISSUES IN PROMOTION: MEDICAL JOURNAL EDITORSHIP PROMOTION DISGUISED: CLINICAL TRIALS PROMOTION DISGUISED: DISINFORMATION AND HARASSMENT REGULATIONS, CODES, GUIDELINES: JOURNALS AND MASS MEDIA SPONSORSHIP: RESEARCH

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








As an advertising man, I can assure you that advertising which does not work does not continue to run. If experience did not show beyond doubt that the great majority of doctors are splendidly responsive to current [prescription drug] advertising, new techniques would be devised in short order. And if, indeed, candor, accuracy, scientific completeness, and a permanent ban on cartoons came to be essential for the successful promotion of [prescription] drugs, advertising would have no choice but to comply.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963