- Roger Dobson
- Abergavenny
The New England Journal of Medicine has been accused of failing its readers and damaging its reputation over a study involving the drug rofecoxib (Vioxx).
The journal waited five years to publish its concerns about the study's findings, says an editorial published online ahead of print publication in August in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (www.jrsm.org). Had it done so earlier, says the editorial, the dangers of the drug, which was later withdrawn, might have been highlighted sooner.
“The way that the journal has behaved in the dispute around the VIGOR [Vioxx gastrointestinal outcomes research] trial, which was the making of Merck's drug rofecoxib (Vioxx), has raised doubts about its integrity and dovetailed with a growing anxiety about the ethics of medical journals,” the editorial says. …
Sign in
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record







CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Ventilator associated pneumonia
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Restless legs syndrome
Published 30 May 2012
Author's reply
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Full access to trial data holds many benefits and a few pitfalls, conference hears
Published 30 May 2012
Restless Legs Syndrome: Fact or Fiction
Published 30 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (9 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 15:42
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27