2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.02.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ten Recommendations for Closing the Credibility Gap in Reporting Industry-Sponsored Clinical Research: A Joint Journal and Pharmaceutical Industry Perspective

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
33
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 56 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
1
33
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One point that contradicts with this assumption is the increasing morbidity and mortality rates of some interventional groups included in the literature review after the publication of the review paper (eg from 0% to 6.3%) (16). Although this appears to contradict with the concept of the learning curve, a detailed evaluation of the first manuscript by Murthy et al reveals that the majority of the reports included in the Pipeline series represent data from carefully controlled (pre-commercialization) device evaluation studies and/or vendor sponsored studies for regulatory approval of the device (such as PITA or PUFS studies) which may inherently contain bias (2,3,18,25) whereas those listed in the Silk report provide "real-life" results with lesser tendency for "cherry picking" of more suitable aneurysms. The inclusion of cases outside the context of trials may have result an increase in the morbidity and mortality rate.…”
Section: █ Conclusionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One point that contradicts with this assumption is the increasing morbidity and mortality rates of some interventional groups included in the literature review after the publication of the review paper (eg from 0% to 6.3%) (16). Although this appears to contradict with the concept of the learning curve, a detailed evaluation of the first manuscript by Murthy et al reveals that the majority of the reports included in the Pipeline series represent data from carefully controlled (pre-commercialization) device evaluation studies and/or vendor sponsored studies for regulatory approval of the device (such as PITA or PUFS studies) which may inherently contain bias (2,3,18,25) whereas those listed in the Silk report provide "real-life" results with lesser tendency for "cherry picking" of more suitable aneurysms. The inclusion of cases outside the context of trials may have result an increase in the morbidity and mortality rate.…”
Section: █ Conclusionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(1) Although GPP2 and the Medical Publishing Insights and Practices (MPIP) 6 Initiative are good initial efforts, how do we gain access to all individuals and organizations involved in the reporting of medical research? (2) How can ISMPP rebut inaccurate and outdated information related to medical publication?…”
Section: Topic 3: Advocacymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Schott et al found mixed evidence on whether studies funded by industry or independent of industry were more likely to be published, but most of the evidence suggested that industry-funded trials had higher rates of publication. The need to report all results in a timely manner was one of the ten key recommendations recently made by editors and industry leaders to enhance the credibility of industry-sponsored research 10 . Arguably, this recommendation would hold for non-industry sponsored research as well.…”
Section: Low Publication Ratesmentioning
confidence: 99%