I agree with Dr. Tomedi's assertion that one might question the
credibility of a commentary written by someone who has received
pharmaceutical industry
support, or for a number of other reasons. It is for this reason that BMJ
Group policies ask authors to acknowledge and openly state any competing
interests (1), and as a result of this policy, Dr. Tomedi could become
aware
of them and consider them in reading the commenta...
I agree with Dr. Tomedi's assertion that one might question the
credibility of a commentary written by someone who has received
pharmaceutical industry
support, or for a number of other reasons. It is for this reason that BMJ
Group policies ask authors to acknowledge and openly state any competing
interests (1), and as a result of this policy, Dr. Tomedi could become
aware
of them and consider them in reading the commentary. An alternative
policy
could be to prohibit any person who has received pharmaceutical company
funding from writing a commentary. However, in some fields, many experts
have received some such funding. In the specific case of this commentary
(2), the commentator has raised a number of cautions about the results of
the study he critically appraised. And the competing interests appear to
span a number of sources (companies). It is certainly appropriate to
question bias, and then use one's judgment based on the available
information. I hope readers will continue to do this as they evaluate not
only the methodology of articles in the medical literature, but also the
context and other factors such as the qualifications of the authors, to
the
extent they can be evaluated.
2. Thomas, Mike. Cross-over randomised controlled trial: Long-
acting ?-agonist step-up therapy is more likely to provide best response,
compared to inhaled corticosteroid or leukotriene-receptor antagonist step
-up in children with uncontrolled asthma receiving inhaled
corticosteroids. Evid Based Med 2010;15:167-168 Published Online First: 16
August 2010
doi:10.1136/ebm1117
The important influence of pharmaceutical manufacturers on the medical literature, and the positive "spin" placed on results and conclusions, has been well documented. Given this pervasive problem, readers may question the credibility of the commentary of an EBM reviewer who has "received consulting fees from MSD, Schering, Novartis and GSK and received honoraria from Altana, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Inglehi...
The important influence of pharmaceutical manufacturers on the medical literature, and the positive "spin" placed on results and conclusions, has been well documented. Given this pervasive problem, readers may question the credibility of the commentary of an EBM reviewer who has "received consulting fees from MSD, Schering, Novartis and GSK and received honoraria from Altana, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Inglehiem, GSK, MSD, Merck Respiratory, Schering-Plough and Teva."
I was surprised to see the assertion by Philip Home that
rosiglitazone is a "particularly safe drug." Given its withdrawal from public use (the current prescribing ban recommended by MHRA in the UK, the European Medicines Agency and the FDA in the United States) due to concerns over increased cardiovascular risks, it would seem that our
health authorities see it as anything but a safe drug.
I agree with Dr. Tomedi's assertion that one might question the credibility of a commentary written by someone who has received pharmaceutical industry support, or for a number of other reasons. It is for this reason that BMJ Group policies ask authors to acknowledge and openly state any competing interests (1), and as a result of this policy, Dr. Tomedi could become aware of them and consider them in reading the commenta...
Dear editor,
The important influence of pharmaceutical manufacturers on the medical literature, and the positive "spin" placed on results and conclusions, has been well documented. Given this pervasive problem, readers may question the credibility of the commentary of an EBM reviewer who has "received consulting fees from MSD, Schering, Novartis and GSK and received honoraria from Altana, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Inglehi...
Dear Editor,
I was surprised to see the assertion by Philip Home that rosiglitazone is a "particularly safe drug." Given its withdrawal from public use (the current prescribing ban recommended by MHRA in the UK, the European Medicines Agency and the FDA in the United States) due to concerns over increased cardiovascular risks, it would seem that our health authorities see it as anything but a safe drug.
Pages