Geoff Spurling and colleagues report findings of a systematic review looking at the relationship between exposure to promotional material from pharmaceutical companies and the quality, quantity, and cost of prescribing. They fail to find evidence of improvements in prescribing after exposure, and find some evidence of an association with higher prescribing frequency, higher costs, or lower prescribing quality.

How safe and effective are antidepressants in children and adolescents? The authors of this review have found disturbing shortcomings in the methods and reporting of trials of newer antidepressants in this patient group Antidepressants introduced since 1990, especially selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and venlafaxine, have been used increasingly as first line treatment for depression in children. 1 2 The safety of prescribing antidepressants to children (including adolescents) has been the subject of increasing concern in the community and the medical profession, leading to recommendations against their use from government and industry (box 1). In this paper, we review the published literature on the efficacy and safety of newer antidepressants in children. MethodsHaving criticised the way in which Keller et al interpreted the results of their study, 3 4 we sought to check the quality of methods and reporting of other published trials of newer antidepressants in children (box 2). Of seven published randomised controlled trials of newer antidepressants for depressed children published in refereed journals, six used a placebo control. 3 5-9 We analysed each study's methods and the extent to which authors' conclusions were supported by data. The seventh study, which compared a newer antidepressant with a tricyclic antidepressant without finding significant difference, 10 was not included in the analysis but appears in the table on bmj.com.

Background to the debate: Only two industrialized countries, the United States and New Zealand, allow direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription medicines, although New Zealand is planning a ban [ 1]. The challenge for these governments is ensuring that DTCA is more beneficial than harmful. Proponents of DTCA argue that it helps to inform the public about available treatments and stimulates appropriate use of drugs for high-priority illnesses (such as statin use in people with ischemic heart disease). Critics argue that the information in the adverts is often biased and misleading, and that DTCA raises prescribing costs without net evidence of health benefits.

ⅷ Objective To examine pharmaceutical advertisements in medical journals for their adequacy of information. ⅷ 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. ⅷ 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. ⅷ 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.

Selective reporting is prevalent in the medical literature, particularly in industry-sponsored research. In this paper, we expose selective reporting that is not evident without access to internal company documents. The published report of study 329 of paroxetine in adolescents sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline claims that "paroxetine is generally well tolerated and effective for major depression in adolescents". By contrast, documents obtained during litigation reveal that study 329 was negative for efficacy on all 8 protocol specified outcomes and positive for harm.