Colleagues, the following is FYI and does not necessarily reflect my own
opinion. I have no further knowledge of the topic.
------------------------
Public release date: 14-Apr-2005
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-04/gumc-rsl041205.php
Contact: Amy DeMaria
[log in to unmask]
202-687-5100
Georgetown University Medical Center
Researcher sheds light on ghostwriting in medical journals
(Washington, DC) -- In a commentary titled “The Corporate Coauthor”
published online by the Journal of General Internal Medicine on April
14, Adriane Fugh-Berman M.D., adjunct associate professor of physiology
and biophysics at the Georgetown University School of Medicine, recounts
her experience of being asked to “author” a ghost-written article funded
by a pharmaceutical company. Fugh-Berman declined, and penned a
commentary about her experience for JGIM instead.
“The pharmaceutical industry relies on ghost-written publications in
peer-reviewed journals as part of their marketing plans,” said
Fugh-Berman. “Physicians rely on information in the medical literature
to make treatment decisions, so hidden sponsorship of articles—and
lectures at medical conferences—is not only unethical, but can
compromise patient care.”
In her commentary, Dr. Fugh-Berman reports that she was approached by a
medical education company working for a well-known pharmaceutical
manufacturer. The company asked her to lend her name as “author” to a
completed manuscript that reviewed herb-warfarin interactions. The
pharmaceutical manufacturer was developing a competitor to warfarin and
had apparently commissioned the article to highlight problems with warfarin.
Fugh-Berman says that the true sponsorship of articles is often fuzzy
because pharmaceutical companies hire medical education companies to act
as intermediaries with researchers. She says that the current voluntary
standards for declaring conflicts of interest to readers of medical
journals and audiences at medical conferences are inadequate, and that a
public database detailing physicians’ and researchers’ conflicts of
interest is needed.
The full commentary, as it appears in the Journal of General Internal
Medicine, is available here.
Dr. Fugh-Berman, a general practitioner who is the author of a reference
text, The 5-Minute Herb and Dietary Supplement Consult (Lippincott,
Williams and Wilkins 2003), teaches in the Georgetown University School
of Medicine’s complementary and alternative medicine master’s degree
program. Based in the department of physiology and biophysics, it is the
first degree-granting master's program in complementary and alternative
medicine in the United States. Dr. Fugh-Berman’s research focuses on
herbs and dietary supplements, women's health, the assessment of
benefits and risks in alternative medicine and conventional medicine,
and influences on physician prescribing. She has published articles in
medical journals including The Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine,
Reproductive Toxicology, and Experimental Biology and Medicine.
******
Public release date: 14-Apr-2005
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-04/iu-mje041105.php
Contact: Cindy Fox Aisen
[log in to unmask]
317-274-7722
Indiana University
Medical journal editors condemn ghostwriting
INDIANAPOLIS -- Ghostwriting may be okay for tell-all celebrity books
but the editors of a peer-reviewed medical journal draw the line when
the veiled author is paid by a pharmaceutical company with a financial
interest in an article's topic.
An editorial in the March issue of the Journal of General Internal
Medicine examines the issue of drug companies commissioning medical
education companies to ghostwrite scientific articles in support of the
company's product.
In addition to the strongly worded editorial, the March JGIM includes an
article detailing the incident that brought the issue to the editors'
attention and a newly developed policy statement on ghostwriting by the
World Association of Medical Editors.
"This is an issue which involved an egregious case of unethical behavior
by an author, a pharmaceutical manufacturer and a medical education
company that has caused an international hue and cry and needs to be
examined under a bright light," said journal co-editor-in-chief William
Tierney, M.D., Chancellor's Professor, professor of medicine and chief
of the Division of General Internal Medicine at the Indiana University
School of Medicine and a Regenstrief Institute research scientist.
"Advancements in science, clinical care and medical education require a
discourse among and between basic and clinical scientists, clinicians
and medical educators," wrote the authors of the editorial, Dr. Tierney
and co-editor Martha Gerrity, M.D., Ph.D., associate professor of
medicine at the Oregon Health and Sciences University.
"Peer reviewed journals such as Journal of General Internal Medicine
serve a critical service by providing a medium for such discourse. To be
most effective in advancing medical science, care and education,
published articles must have relevant content that pushes back the
interface between what is known and what is yet to be discovered.
Articles' content must be based on high quality and reproducible
methods," they wrote."
The editors continue: "We had no problem with this manuscript's having
been commissioned by a pharmaceutical manufacturer or that someone from
the medical education company had performed a review of the evidence and
written the draft manuscript. There were two substantial problems,
though. First, the contribution of the initial manuscript's original
author(s) was not recognized by co-authorship and taking direct
responsibility for the work. Second, the financial relationship between
that author and the pharmaceutical company was not acknowledged.
"It is important to mention that the author of the manuscript submitted
to JGIM was not offered money in return for 'authoring' this manuscript.
The medical education company preyed upon academicians' general need to
'publish or perish.'
"Not all interactions between the private sector and academia are
necessarily unethical or biased. By encouraging appropriate management
of acute and chronic conditions, pharmaceutical manufacturers can
benefit to the degree that use of their products is encouraged by
evidence-based guidelines established by independent bodies.
"This is not a new problem and will likely be with us as long as
unscrupulous corporate officers care more about profits than the truth
and don't realize the adverse effects on their profits that will result
from an erosion of public trust," concluded Drs. Tierney and Gerrity.
--
Kathrynne Holden, MS, RD < [log in to unmask] >
"Ask the Parkinson Dietitian" http://www.parkinson.org/
"Eat well, stay well with Parkinson's disease"
"Parkinson's disease: Guidelines for Medical Nutrition Therapy"
http://www.nutritionucanlivewith.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent through the Ageing in Europe
mailing list.
Please visit the homepage of the ESA Research Network
on Ageing in Europe at http://www.ageing-in-europe.de
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
