Published 21 April 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b1612
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b1612

Letters

Competing interests et al

Stealth advertising and academic stalking

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

In a rapid response Leo and Lacasse critiqued a study published in JAMA for not mentioning that a psychosocial intervention was as effective as an antidepressant for post-stroke depression and for failing to record relevant conflicts of interest.1 JAMA’s editors have since contacted Leo and his superiors.2 This dispute highlights the fact some studies in respected journals amount to stealth advertising,3 and when legitimate scientific critics point this out, they may be the recipients of academic stalking.4

Stealth advertising and academic stalking mean that many patient volunteers generate research data that are never made accessible to the public. For example, the Turner et al analysis of antidepressant trials found that 3449 depressed patients participated in studies that were never published.5 Another 1843 patients participated in studies in which the data were published as positive in conflict with the Food and Drug Administration’s assessment that they were negative studies. Someone . . . [Full text of this article]

David Antonuccio, professor1, David Healy, professor2

1 Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Nevada School of Medicine, Reno, NV 89503, USA, 2 North Wales Department of Psychological Medicine, Cardiff University, Wales LL57 2PW

dantonuccio@medicine.nevada.edu


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?
Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ