Intended for healthcare professionals

News Roundup [abridged Versions Appear In The Paper Journal]

Only 6% of drug advertising material is supported by evidence

BMJ 2004; 328 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7438.485-a (Published 27 February 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;328:485

A deliberately misleading title?

Alan S. Black huffs and puffs that the title of the piece is
misleading because it is from a survey in Germany. He goes on to
substantiate his case by emphasising the rigour applied to pharmaceutical
advertising literature in the UK.

In other words, what he is saying is that pharmaceutical companies
will be as 'misleading' (or insert your own choice of synonym) as they can
where they think they will get away with it. How reassuring. I wonder if
the standards applied to advertising and promotion in many third world
countries are as rigorous, if they can get away with only 6%
substantiation in Germany?

In some respects, I think the 85% of citations that either don't
exist or are cited deceptively is the most telling.

Competing interests:
None declared

Competing interests: No competing interests

18 March 2004
Michael R Hersee
Bus driver
Centrebus (St Albans), Ronson's way, St Albans, Herts, AL4 9XR