News extra

JAMA’s editor stresses authors’ need to disclose financial ties

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 cases where authors didn’t disclose, there was nothing wrong with the studies . . . The press had been having a hay day [suggesting the studies were flawed],” she said.

Her statement follows three cases of non-disclosure involving authors from Harvard Medical School. Instead of quietly publishing a correction, the journal published letters from authors who had not disclosed potential conflicts of interest, with an apology to readers of the journal (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/296/6/653-a and http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/296/6/654-a ).

Authors’ failure to fully disclose their financial ties “does not automatically translate to the article being flawed,” she cautioned. “There simply is no way to guarantee that all financial relationships and arrangements of all authors are disclosed” because the journal cannot investigate thousands of people each year.

“Because we have been so adamant and open about disclosure of financial interests, it is not surprising that we are being made aware of non-disclosures by authors and readers,” Dr DeAngelis wrote.

JAMA requires all authors and peer reviewers to sign a statement disclosing financial interests that may be perceived as influencing their results. The journal reminded authors of the requirement in a editorial in 2005 and a stronger statement published last month (JAMA 2006;296:220-1).

Meanwhile Harvard’s medical school dean plans to remind all 8000 faculty members of disclosure requirements by JAMA and also by the New England Journal of Medicine, she says.

“The response from the press, authors, and from readers has been incredible,” she said. “Three medical schools have now contacted me, asking me to provide assistance. They’re making changes in rules about what kind of relationships medical researchers and physicians can have [with pharmaceutical companies],” she told the BMJ. In her editorial, Dr DeAngelis acknowledges that profit making companies are essential to the development of new drugs, devices, and techniques. However, a company’s marketing goals may dominate scientific research. Sometimes companies have not provided all study data to a research team; reported only short term data when longer term were available; made incomplete reports of adverse events; and hidden data showing harm in clinical trials.

Companies have also influenced research by control of statistical analysis, for example, reporting only six month data when 12 month data were available. JAMA requires an analysis of data from industry sponsored studies by an independent statistician from an academic institution. For this reason, some companies insist that researchers do not submit studies to JAMA.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?