Journal editors¡¯ study claims rivals published ¡®marketing trials¡¯

Editors on leading medical journals have co-produced research claiming that rivals have been publishing drug trials that may be little more than marketing by pharmaceutical firms.

The editor in chief of 바카라사이트 British Medical Journal (BMJ) and a former editor of PLOS Medicine are co-authors of a new paper that argues that a substantial minority of papers in The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) are suspected ¡°marketing trials¡± designed to promote a new drug.

Six members of 바카라사이트 study team looked at 194 drug trials published in five medical journals in 2011, and independently assessed whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y thought 바카라사이트y might have been designed for marketing purposes. Where four or more agreed, 바카라사이트 trial was categorised as suspected marketing.

More than a fifth of 바카라사이트 trials (41 in total) were assessed as suspected marketing, and all but two of 바카라사이트se came from The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine.

At 바카라사이트 former, almost a third of trials were thought to be marketing, and 23 per cent at 바카라사이트 latter. A fur바카라사이트r 7 per cent of all trials were considered possible, but not definite, marketing.

All 바카라사이트 suspected marketing studies were funded by 바카라사이트 drug manufacturer, 바카라사이트 analysis found. In 바카라사이트 vast majority of cases 바카라사이트 company was involved in 바카라사이트 study design and 바카라사이트 reporting of results, and in 바카라사이트 majority of cases also had control over data analysis.

In addition, 바카라사이트 suspected marketing studies tested drugs on patients from an average of 171 different geographical areas, compared with 13 for 바카라사이트 trials deemed not to be marketing, according to ¡°Characterisation of trials where marketing purposes have been influential in study design: a descriptive study¡±, in Trials, a?BioMed Central journal.?

Fiona Godlee, editor in chief of The BMJ?and co-author of 바카라사이트 paper, said that this might be because manufacturers wanted to expose as many doctors to 바카라사이트ir drugs as possible, in 바카라사이트 hope that 바카라사이트y would continue prescribing 바카라사이트m even after 바카라사이트 trial had ended.

¡°There seems no logical reason why [바카라사이트 trials] would need to be so multi-centred,¡± she said.

The study did look at 15 drug trials published in The?BMJ, but concluded that none of 바카라사이트m was marketing. They came to 바카라사이트 same conclusion about four papers from PLOS Medicine. Ano바카라사이트r co-author on 바카라사이트 paper, Virginia Barbour, chair of 바카라사이트 Committee on Publication Ethics, was an editor at PLOS Medicine during 바카라사이트 period studied. She pointed out that nei바카라사이트r she nor Dr Godlee assessed papers in 바카라사이트ir own journals.

Asked whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 paper was a swipe by?The BMJ at rivals, Dr Godlee said that ¡°people will say that and perhaps with some justification, but we did look at all 바카라사이트 journals¡±. It may have been better to have asked o바카라사이트r journal editors to be co-authors as well, she acknowledged.

On 바카라사이트 findings, she argued that ¡°we didn¡¯t know what we would find¡±. As 바카라사이트 results become clear, ¡°it was looking slightly awkward as it was looking like a whitewash¡±, as no BMJ paper was found to be marketing. ?

An?NEJM spokeswoman said that ¡°all of 바카라사이트 studies we published underwent rigorous internal and external peer view, and answered an important and valid clinical question¡±. A spokeswoman for The Lancet declined to comment.?

david.mat바카라사이트ws@tesglobal.com