RSS Feeds
Sponsorship, Authorship, and Accountability
- Frank Davidoff, MD;
- Catherine D. DeAngelis, MD, MPH;
- Jeffrey M. Drazen, MD;
- The Editors;
- John Hoey, MD;
- Liselotte Højgaard, MD, DMSc;
- Richard Horton, FRCP;
- Sheldon Kotzin;
- Magne Nylenna;
- A. John P.M. Overbeke, MD, PhD;
- Harold C. Sox, MD;
- Martin B. Van Der Weyden, MD, FRACP, FRCPA; and
- Michael S. Wilkes, MD, PhD
- Dr. Davidoff: Editor Emeritus, Annals of Internal Medicine Dr. DeAngelis: Editor, Journal of the American Medical Association Dr. Drazen: Editor-in-Chief, The New England Journal of Medicine The Editors: The New Zealand Medical Journal Dr. Hoey: Editor, Canadian Medical Association Journal Dr. Højgaard: Editor-in-Chief, Ugeskrift for Læger (Journal of the Danish Medical Association) Dr. Horton: Editor, The Lancet Mr. Kotzin: Executive Editor, MEDLINE/Index Medicus Mr. Nylenna: Editor-in-Chief, Tidsskrift for Den norske laegeforening (Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association) Dr. Overbeke: Executive Editor, Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (Dutch Journal of Medicine) Dr. Sox: Editor, Annals of Internal Medicine Dr. Van Der Weyden: Editor, The Medical Journal of Australia Dr. Wilkes: Editor, Western Journal of Medicine
As editors of general medical journals, we recognize that the publication of clinical-research findings in respected peer-reviewed journals is the ultimate basis for most treatment decisions. Public discourse about this published evidence of efficacy and safety rests on the assumption that clinical-trials data have been gathered and are presented in an objective and dispassionate manner. This discourse is vital to the scientific practice of medicine because it shapes treatment decisions made by physicians and drives public and private health care policy. We are concerned that the current intellectual environment in which some clinical research is conceived, study participants are recruited, and the data analyzed and reported (or not reported) may threaten this precious objectivity.
Clinical trials are powerful tools; like all powerful tools, they must be used with care. They allow investigators to test biologic hypotheses in living patients, and they have the potential to change the standards of care. The secondary economic impact of such changes can be substantial. Well-done trials, published in high-profile journals, may be used to market drugs and medical devices, potentially resulting in substantial financial gain for the sponsor. But powerful tools must be used carefully. Patients participate in clinical trials largely for altruistic reasons—that is, to advance the standard of care. In the light of that truth, the use of clinical trials primarily for marketing, in our view, makes a mockery of clinical investigation and is a misuse of a powerful tool.
Until recently, academic, independent clinical investigators were key players in design, patient recruitment, and data interpretation in clinical trials. The intellectual and working home of these investigators, the academic medical center, has been at the hub of this enterprise, and many institutions have developed complex infrastructures devoted to the design and conduct of clinical trials (1, 2). The academic enterprise has …
