Narrative Review Articles: Are Bans Based on Industry Ties a Good Enough Solution?
I have followed the discussion with interest being new to Evidence
Based Health Care. I vote against an arbitrary ban based for the following
reasons.
A ban is not enough to resolve the issue and may feed the concept
that better is the enemy of best. This in no way advocates that we do
nothing or take a wait and see attitude. This is a serious situation that
can impact health care/research dollars, effective treatment and
patient/treatment provider actions.
Much research is industry dependent which means extent and influence
of industry ties needs careful consideration by reviewers and editors
alike while also recognising that industry ties are not the only
indication for publication bias.
This may take an overhaul of the editorial/review process inclusive
of education and implementation.
Narratives are often a quick read and do not provide access to raw
data, information on how replication can be accomplished or scrupulous
attention to competing interests or industry ties. The challenge is that
this information still has the capacity to form a basis for decision
making. It is read quickly and easily and this may have a broader reach
particularly to the less informed or time challenged than a complex
research paper.
Information forms a basis for decisions. Responsible reviewing and
editing is critical for the accurate dissemination of information, a ban
just removes the information throwing out the good with the bad.
I would suggest ICMJE's declarations about authorship/competing
interests which are directed mainly towards research be applied equally to
narrative articles. It would be prudent to disclose peer reviewers and
that they in turn declare industry ties, affiliations and conflicts of
interest.
Accountability by authors could be improved if these authors agreed
to provide full access to raw data of whatever they have included at the
request of the editorial board, reviewers or interested subscribers.
As an added interest I would suggest that particular attention in
narrative reviews be placed by reviewers and editors on tentative or
misleading wording which can be embedded to promote industry positions
over existing peer reviewed research.
Rapid Response:
Narrative Review Articles: Are Bans Based on Industry Ties a Good Enough Solution?
I have followed the discussion with interest being new to Evidence
Based Health Care. I vote against an arbitrary ban based for the following
reasons.
A ban is not enough to resolve the issue and may feed the concept
that better is the enemy of best. This in no way advocates that we do
nothing or take a wait and see attitude. This is a serious situation that
can impact health care/research dollars, effective treatment and
patient/treatment provider actions.
Much research is industry dependent which means extent and influence
of industry ties needs careful consideration by reviewers and editors
alike while also recognising that industry ties are not the only
indication for publication bias.
This may take an overhaul of the editorial/review process inclusive
of education and implementation.
Narratives are often a quick read and do not provide access to raw
data, information on how replication can be accomplished or scrupulous
attention to competing interests or industry ties. The challenge is that
this information still has the capacity to form a basis for decision
making. It is read quickly and easily and this may have a broader reach
particularly to the less informed or time challenged than a complex
research paper.
Information forms a basis for decisions. Responsible reviewing and
editing is critical for the accurate dissemination of information, a ban
just removes the information throwing out the good with the bad.
I would suggest ICMJE's declarations about authorship/competing
interests which are directed mainly towards research be applied equally to
narrative articles. It would be prudent to disclose peer reviewers and
that they in turn declare industry ties, affiliations and conflicts of
interest.
Accountability by authors could be improved if these authors agreed
to provide full access to raw data of whatever they have included at the
request of the editorial board, reviewers or interested subscribers.
As an added interest I would suggest that particular attention in
narrative reviews be placed by reviewers and editors on tentative or
misleading wording which can be embedded to promote industry positions
over existing peer reviewed research.
Amy Price
Competing interests: No competing interests