‘This study was funded by (Company A). Professor XYZ has received honoraria and travel support for lectures and advisory boards, as well as research grants, from (Company A) and (Company B).’
References
1.
AnckerJ., FlanaginA.A comparison of conflict of interest policies at peer-reviewed journals in multiple scientific disciplines. Paper presented at The Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication; Chicago, 17 September 2005. Available at http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/abstracts.html#LinkTarget_6571 (accessed 23 July 2006)
2.
CooperR.J., GuptaM., WilkesM.S., HoffmanJ.R.Conflict of Interest Disclosure Policies and Practices of Peer-Reviewed Biomedical Journals. Paper presented at The Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication; Chicago, 17 September 2005. Available at http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/abstracts.html#LinkTarget_6571 (accessed 23 July 2006)
3.
BuchkowskyS.S., JewessonP.J.Industry sponsorship and authorship of clinical trials over 20 years.Ann Pharmacother2004; 38: 579–85
4.
EggerM., BartlettC., JuniP.Are randomised controlled trials in the BMJ different?BMJ2001; 326: 1167–70
5.
LexchinJ., BeroL.A., DjulbegovicB., ClarkO.Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review.BMJ2003; 326: 1167–77
6.
JørgensenA.W., HildenJ., GøtzscheP.C.Cochrane reviews compared with industry-sponsored meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs.BMJ2006; 333: 782
7.
YankV., RennieD., BeroL.A.Are authors’ financial ties with pharmaceutical companies associated with positive results or conclusions in meta-analyses on antihypertensive medications? Paper presented at The Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication; Chicago, 17 September 2005. Available at http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/abstracts.htmlGLinkTarget_6571 (accessed 27 February 2006)
8.
DickersinK.How important is publication bias? A synthesis of available data.AIDS Educ Prev1997; 9(Suppl): 15–21
9.
SmithR.Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies.PLoS Medicine2005; 2: 364–6
10.
ChanA.W., HrobjartssonA., HaahrM.T., GotzscheP.C., AltmanD.G.Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles.JAMA2004; 291: 2457–65
11.
IoannidisJ.P.A.Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research.JAMA2005; 294: 218–28
12.
PhillipsD.P., KanterE.J., BednarczykB., TastadP.L.Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community.N Engl J Med1991; 325: 1180–3
13.
FlanaginA., FontanarosaP.F., DeAngelisC.D.Update on JAMA's conflict of interest policy.JAMA2006; 296: 220–1
14.
MelloM.M., ClarridgeB.R., StuddertD.M.Academic medical centers’ standards for clinical-trial agreements with industry.N Engl J Med2005; 352: 2202–10
15.
JamesA., HortonR.The Lancet's policy on conflicts of interest.Lancet2003; 361: 8–9
KimS.Y.H., MillardR.W., NisbetP., CoxC., CaineE.D.Potential research participants’ views regarding researcher and institutional financial conflicts of interest.J Med Ethics2004; 30: 73–79
18.
BMJ.Time to untangle doctors from drug companies.BMJ Theme Issue2003; 326: Issue 7400
19.
ArmstrongD.Medical reviews face criticism over lapses.Wall Street Journal 19 July 2006
20.
(Anonymous editorial).Our conflicted medical journals.New York Times 23 July 2006
21.
AksnesD.W.A macro study of self-citation.Scientometrics2003; 56: 235–46
22.
GamiA.S., MontoriV.M., WilczynskiN.L., HaynesR.B.Author self-citation in the diabetes literature.CMAJ2004; 170: 1925–27
23.
SchulzK.F., ChalmersI., HayesR.J., AltmanD.G.Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.JAMA1995; 273: 2546–7
24.
BalkE.M., BonisP.A., MoskowitzH.. Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.JAMA2002; 287: 2973–82
