- Roger Dobson
- Abergavenny
The New England Journal of Medicine has been accused of failing its readers and damaging its reputation over a study involving the drug rofecoxib (Vioxx).
The journal waited five years to publish its concerns about the study's findings, says an editorial published online ahead of print publication in August in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (www.jrsm.org). Had it done so earlier, says the editorial, the dangers of the drug, which was later withdrawn, might have been highlighted sooner.
“The way that the journal has behaved in the dispute around the VIGOR [Vioxx gastrointestinal outcomes research] trial, which was the making of Merck's drug rofecoxib (Vioxx), has raised doubts about its integrity and dovetailed with a growing anxiety about the ethics of medical journals,” the editorial says. …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012