Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
E is for equivocal, but don’t confuse professional writers with competing interests
- Liz Wager (30 April 2004)
-
EBM Vs MBE
- Joseph I. Yikona (1 May 2004)
|
|
|||
|
Liz Wager, Freelance Medical Writer Princes Risborough, Bucks, HP27 9DE, UK
Send response to journal:
|
Matthew Kiln’s letter (E is for equivocal in EBM) made me cheer, then groan. I agree with his concern about suppression of research findings. Although I’m not convinced that this really represents a ‘large volume’, any under-publication is undesirable, and pressure needs to be put on drug companies to publish results of all their studies. A small group working in or with the industry has published Guidelines on Good Publication Practice for Pharmaceutical Companies [1] and these call on companies to endeavour to publish the results of all clinical trials of marketed products. They are now endorsed by a few companies, and are gaining support from writers and journal editors (for more information look at www.gpp-guidelines.org). However, I take issue with Kiln’s third point. Although he is correct that professional (non-author) writers are often involved in producing papers, I do not believe that this increases the unreliability of publications. In fact, I believe that professional writers often raise the standard of papers. Kiln (like many before him) is confusing the issue of writer involvement with that of competing interest and the role of the sponsor. Writers (especially if funded by the sponsor) should be identified in the acknowledgements (that’s why we don’t like the term ‘ghost writers’ which implies we are hidden), as should any source of funding. I admit my own competing interest: I earn my living as a freelance writer and editor. However, I also run training courses for both doctors and writers. While many researchers can and do write well, many others lack skills in English or the ability to write clearly, and I find them far less well informed about standards such as CONSORT than the professional writers. I firmly believe that professional writers can improve the quality of the reporting of clinical trials. That’s not to say that there aren’t examples of bad behaviour and irresponsible publication practices – that’s why we developed GPP. Dr Kiln may also be interested to know that the European Medical Writers Association is developing guidelines setting out responsible behaviour for its members. Yes, there are many problems with EBM and the reporting of clinical trials, but I don’t believe that ghost writing is one of them. Reference Wager E, Field EA, Grossman L. Good Publication Practice for Pharmaceutical Companies. Curr Med Res Opinion 2003; 19:149-54. Competing interests: I am a freelance medical writer, working largely for drug companies, and used to work in the pharmaceutical industry. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Joseph I. Yikona, Specialist Registrar-Internal Medicine and Geriatric Medicine Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, UK.
Send response to journal:
|
Having had the re-invigoration of EBM in the last 9 years, and learnt the multiple short-comings of this growth industry reality should now return. Cost-effective decision making is at the opposite end which is often exploited by the EBMists. David Sackett's personal view in the BMJ 2000;320:1283 sums up the care with which we should interpret EBM.Ghost writers are the last straw! Real world research like the PROBE design method in some blood pressure trials is probably the way forward. We should now continue refining real world medicine until we have MEDICINE BASED EVIDENCE(MBE). Competing interests: None declared |
|||