Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2006;333:370 (19 August), doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7564.370-c
New York Janice Tanne
The editor of JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, has said that the journal would continue its efforts, begun in 1985, to make readers aware of the financial ties of authors.
In an editorial published online ahead of print on 8 August, JAMA's editor, Catherine DeAngelis, states, “Peer-reviewed medical journals must always place the interests of patients above all else” (www.jama-assn.org, doi:10.1001/jama.296.8.jed60051).
“I think it’s very important now. At least in the United States, the vast majority of clinical research is paid for by drug companies. There’s nothing wrong with that. Somebody’s got to pay for research,” Dr DeAngelis told the BMJ. But when authors fail to disclose ties with drug companies, readers may perceive that authors have something to hide, she added. “In my editorial I went way out of my way to say that even in
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
Israeli students are refusing to perform intimate examinations on anaesthetised women without their informed consent.