Time for optimismBMJ 2011; 342 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d3351 (Published 31 May 2011) Cite this as: BMJ 2011;342:d3351
All rapid responses
Since submitting our letter  we have realised we failed to spot,
and indeed repeated, an important error contained in Bob Roehr's news
story (paragraph 8) . We apologise for this mistake.
It is not the case that 'most doctors (83%) believed that industry
support should be eliminated from CME' [1, 2]. Rather, Tabas and
colleagues  found '208 of 370 (56%) agreed or strongly agreed that
commercial support is essential for accredited CME and should not be
eliminated' (this proportion, when added to the physicians who were
neutral makes 83%).
Whilst the challenge is greater than we previously thought, there are
many encouraging findings in Tabas' study. For example, 86% of physicians
agreed there was 'moderate of large potential for bias' in educational
events 100% funded by a single industry sponsor . This is a starting
We continue to believe change in the funding of CME is both possible
1. Yates TA, Parks T. Time for optimism. BMJ 2011; 342: d3351.
2. Roehr B. US doctors are unwilling to pay more to abolish industry
funded CME. BMJ
2011; 342: d2948.
3. Tabas JA, Boscardin C, Jacobsen DM, Steinman MA, Volberding PA, Baron
attitudes about commercial support of continuing medical education. Arch
2011; 171: 840-6.
Competing interests: No competing interests