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.
Published 2 September 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b3443
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;339:b3443
Marisa de Andrade, freelance journalist
marisa.de-andrade@strath.ac.uk
Despite measures to improve transparency of research funding, Marisa de Andrade finds there is still scope for confusion
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
On a Friday night in March 2009, I joined more than 30 doctors gathered at the Gleneagles Hotel for predinner drinks. We were attending a weekend meeting at the invitation of the University of Dundees Hypertension Research Centre and Medicines Monitoring Unit after "positive feedback" from a similar gathering in January. Both meetings aimed to provide practices with sufficient information about the Standard Care versus Celecoxib Outcome Trial (SCOT) to enable general practitioners to decide whether to participate.
The invitation did not mention Pfizer, although the drug company was providing £26m (
30m; $43m) for the study.1 Instead, the trial was described as "an academic, investigator-initiated study, requested by the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) and sponsored by the University of Dundee." The university is working in partnership with the universities of Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Aberdeen and collaborating with researchers from Nottingham University and the University of Southern Denmark.2 3
The SCOT
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses