NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.

Reuters: hidden conflicts common in journal articles

Reuters Health published an important story, “Financial transparency skin-deep at medical journals.” Excerpts:

“Nobody is making sure that authors declare their conflicts of interest.

That has a very real potential to influence public health and corporate bottom lines, experts say, because researchers with industry ties are more likely to promote drugs and downplay side effects.

“At its worst, it can allow patients to have unrealistic hopes about a treatment for their conditions,” Dr. Virginia Barbour, chief editor of the journal PLoS Medicine, told Reuters Health. “And it can distort the prescribing practice of physicians.”

In a review of 50 reports from the British Journal of Dermatology, a top-tier skin research journal, Reuters Health has found that authors often don’t disclose even the most glaring conflicts of interest. And editors are reluctant to do anything about it — in fact, they don’t even agree on when a conflict of interest exists.

What’s more, many journal publishers derive a substantial part of their revenue from drug ads and reprint requests from pharmaceutical companies, and there are examples of editors who moonlight as paid consultants for the industry.

“Editors probably need to be more vigilant than they are at the moment,” said Barbour, whose journal doesn’t run drug ads. “And I think that editors also need to be very aware that they themselves can be part of the competing interests.”

You might also like

Comments

Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.

EMBresearch

June 11, 2011 at 5:37 pm

Thanks for posting this important article.
Do conflicts of interest pave the way for spin of non-significant data? Does this spin affect the uptake of new medical technologies?
Dr. Wini Hayes of Hayes, Inc. discusses these concerns in a similar blog article:
http://www.hayesinc.com/hayes/2011/06/07/what%E2%80%99s-spin-got-to-do-with-it/