Search

Background: A previous study found that 2 of 29 (6.9%) meta-analyses published in high-impact journals in 2009 reported included drug trials' funding sources, and none reported trial authors' financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) or industry employment. It is not known if reporting has improved since 2009. Our objectives were to (1) investigate the extent to which pharmaceutical industry funding and author-industry FCOIs and employment from included drug trials are reported in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals and (2) compare current reporting with results from 2009., Methods: We searched PubMed (January 2017-October 2018) for systematic reviews with meta-analyses including ≥ 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patented drugs. We included 3 meta-analyses published January 2017-October 2018 from each of 4 high-impact general medicine journals, high-impact journals from 5 specialty areas, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, as in the previous study., Results: Among 29 meta-analyses reviewed, 13 of 29 (44.8%) reported the funding source of included trials compared to 2 of 29 (6.9%) in 2009, a difference of 37.9% (95% confidence interval, 15.7 to 56.3%); this included 7 of 11 (63.6%) from general medicine journals, 3 of 15 (20.0%) from specialty medicine journals, and 3 of 3 (100%) Cochrane reviews. Only 2 of 29 meta-analyses (6.9%) reported trial author FCOIs, and none reported trial author-industry employment., Protocol Publication: A protocol was uploaded to the Open Science Framework prior to initiating the study. https://osf.io/8xt5p/ LIMITATIONS: We examined only a relatively small number of meta-analyses from selected high-impact journals and compared results to a similarly small sample from an earlier time period., Conclusions: Reporting of drug trial sponsorship and author FCOIs in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals has increased since 2009 but is still suboptimal. Standards on reporting of trial funding described in the forthcoming revised PRISMA statement should be adapted and enforced by journals to improve reporting.

Background: Pharmaceutical advertisements have been argued to provide revenue that medical journals require but they are intended to alter prescribing behaviour and they are known to include low quality information. We determined whether a difference exists in the current level of pharmaceutical advertising in print general medical journals, and we estimated the revenue generated from print pharmaceutical advertising., Methods: Six print general medical journals in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom were sampled between 2007 and 2012. The number of advertisements and other journal content in selected issues of the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ), Canadian Family Physician (CFP), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), British Medical Journal (BMJ), and Lancet were determined. Revenue gained from pharmaceutical advertising was estimated using each journal's 2013 advertising price list., Findings: The two Canadian journals sampled (CMAJ, CFP) contained five times more advertisements than the two American journals (JAMA, NEJM), and two British journals (BMJ, Lancet) (p<0.0001). The estimated annual revenue from pharmaceutical advertisements ranged from £0.025 million (for Lancet) to £3.8 million (for JAMA). The cost savings due to revenue from pharmaceutical advertising to each individual subscriber ranged from £0.02 (for Lancet) to £3.56 (for CFP) per issue., Conclusion: The volume of pharmaceutical advertisements differs between general medical journals, with the two Canadian journals sampled containing the most advertisements. International and temporal variations suggest that there is an opportunity for all general medical journals to reduce the number of pharmaceutical advertisements, explore other sources of revenue, and increase transparency regarding sources of revenue.

Background: There is evidence to suggest that pharmaceutical companies influence the publication and content of research papers. Most German physicians rely on journals for their continuing medical education. We studied the influence of pharmaceutical advertising on the drug recommendations made in articles published in 11 German journals that focus on continuing medical education., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of all of the issues of 11 journals published in 2007. Only journals frequently read by general practitioners were chosen. Issues were screened for pharmaceutical advertisements and recommendations made in the editorial content for a specified selection of drugs. Each journal was rated on a five-point scale according to the strength with which it either recommended or discouraged the use of these drugs. We looked for differences in these ratings between free journals (i.e., those financed entirely by pharmaceutical advertising), journals with mixed sources of revenue and journals financed solely by subscription fees. The journals were also screened for the simultaneous appearance of advertisements and recommendations for the same drug within a certain period, which was adjusted for both journal and class of drug., Results: We identified 313 issues containing at least one advertisement for the selected drugs and 412 articles in which drug recommendations were made. Free journals were more likely to recommend the specified drugs than journals with sources of revenue that were mixed or based solely on subscriptions. The simultaneous appearance of advertisements and recommendations for the same drug in the same issue of a journal showed an inconsistent association., Interpretation: Free journals almost exclusively recommended the use of the specified drugs, whereas journals financed entirely with subscription fees tended to recommend against the use of the same drugs. Doctors should be aware of this bias in their use of material published in medical journals that focus on continuing medical education.

Objective: To examine pharmaceutical advertisements in medical journals for their adequacy of information., Methods: We selected a convenience sample of 5 major Russian medical journals covering different fields of medicine and different types of publications. We evaluated all the ads in all the issues of the selected journals published during 1998. We counted the number of appearances of trade, chemical, and generic names; indication and contraindication; pharmacologic group; safety warnings; and references. Counts in all categories were aggregated for each advertiser., Results: There were 397 placements of 207 distinct advertisements. Only 154 placements (40%) mentioned the generic name, 177 (45%) mentioned any indication, 42 (11%) mentioned safety warnings and contraindications, 21 (5%) warned about drug interactions, and 8 (2%) provided references. The 6 companies responsible for the most ads on average provided less information than the other companies., Conclusions: Almost none of the drug ads published in Russian medical journals provide the basic information required for appropriate prescribing. This is despite the fact that in Russia, ads that omit essential information and that could lead consumers to misunderstandings about an advertised product are illegal. The arrival of drug advertising in Russia has brought little information and has been potentially damaging.

Objective: To examine how changes in outcomes are reported in drug advertisements in medical journals., Quality of Evidence: Advertisements from a convenience sample of 38 issues of Canadian Family Physician, Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia, Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Canadian Medical Association Journal, and the New England Journal of Medicine., Main Message: Method of reporting changes in clinical outcomes (relative risk reduction [RRR], absolute risk reduction [ARR], number needed to treat [NNT]), name of product, and company marketing product were sought. In the 22 advertisements included in the analysis, 11 reported results as RRRs; two reported results as RRRs, but readers could calculate ARRs or NNTs from figures given in the advertisement; and nine gave no measure of results, but readers could calculate RRRs, ARRs, or NNTs from figures given., Conclusions: Most companies report changes in outcomes as RRRs, and this bias could influence the way physicians prescribe. Changes to the rules governing journal advertising and increased emphasis on critical appraisal skills would help mitigate this bias.

Objective: To evaluate the methodologic quality and relevance of references in pharmaceutical advertisements in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ)., Design: Analytic study., Data Source: All 114 references cited in the first 22 distinct pharmaceutical advertisements in volume 146 of CMAJ., Main Outcome Measures: Mean methodologic quality score (modified from the 6-point scale used to assess articles in the American College of Physicians' Journal Club) and mean relevance score (based on a new 5-point scale) for all references in each advertisement., Main Results: Twenty of the 22 companies responded, sending 78 (90%) of the 87 references requested. The mean methodologic quality score was 58% (95% confidence limits [CL] 51% and 65%) and the mean relevance score 76% (95% CL 72% and 80%). The two mean scores were statistically lower than the acceptable score of 80% (p < 0.05), and the methodologic quality score was outside the preset clinically significant difference of 15%. The poor rating for methodologic quality was primarily because of the citation of references to low-quality review articles and "other" sources (i.e., other than reports of clinical trials). Half of the advertisements had a methodologic quality score of less than 65%, but only five had a relevance score of less than 65%., Conclusions: Although the relevance of most of the references was within minimal acceptable limits, the methodologic quality was often unacceptable. Because advertisements are an important part of pharmaceutical marketing and education, we suggest that companies develop written standards for their advertisements and monitor their advertisements for adherence to these standards. We also suggest that the Pharmaceutical Advertising Advisory Board develop more stringent guidelines for advertising and that it enforce these guidelines in a consistent, rigorous fashion.