The characteristics of unsolicited clinical oncology literature provided by pharmaceutical industry [2]

Annals of Oncology

Volumn 18, Issue 9, 2007, Pages 1580-1582

  Wick, C ^a   Egger, M ^a   Trelle, S ^a   Juni P ^a   Fey , Martin F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANASTROZOLE; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENT; ANTILIPEMIC AGENT; DOCETAXEL; TAMOXIFEN;

CANCER; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL; DATA ANALYSIS; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG INFORMATION; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG RESEARCH; HUMAN; LETTER; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS; MULTIPLE MYELOMA; ONCOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

ADVERTISING AS TOPIC; DRUG INDUSTRY; MARKETING OF HEALTH SERVICES; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; PUBLISHING;

EID: 34548421624     PISSN: 09237534     EISSN: 15698041     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdm402     Document Type: Letter

References (17)

1. Drug promotion: Stealth, wealth, and safety. Lancet 1993; 341: 1507-1508.
2. Rosenthal MB, Berndt ER, Donohue JM et al. Promotion of prescription drugs to consumers, N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 498-505.
3. Caudill TS, Lurie N, Rich EC. The influence of pharmaceutical industry advertising on physician prescribing. J Drug Issues 1992; 22: 331-338.
4. Cho MK, Bero LA. The quality of drug studies published in symposium proceedings. Ann Intern Med 1996; 124: 485-489.
5. Villanueva P, Peiro S, Librero J, Pereiro I. Accuracy of pharmaceutical advertisements in medical journals. Lancet 2003; 361: 27-32.
6. Bowman MA. Pharmaceutical company/physician interactions. Finding the balance. Arch Fam Med 1994; 3: 317-318.
7. Bernardi O, Errante D, Bianco A, Salvagno L. Are sales representatives and the sale strategies of pharmaceutical companies getting too aggressive towards physicians? Ann Oncol 2007; 18: 607.
8. Angeli M. Excess in the pharmaceutical industry. CMAJ 2004; 171: 1451-1453.
9. Avorn J, Chen M, Hartley R. Scientific versus commercial sources of influence on the prescribing behavior of physicians. Am J Med 1982; 73: 4-8.
10. Henry D, Doran E, Kerridge I et al. Ties that bind: Multiple relationships between clinical researchers and the pharmaceutical industry. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165: 2493-2496.
11. Somerset M, Weiss M, Fahey T. Dramaturgical study of meetings between general practitioners and representatives of pharmaceutical companies; Commentary: Dramaturgical model gives valuable insight. BMJ 2001; 323: 1481-1484.
12. Egger M, Davey Smith G. Meta-analysis: Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ 1998; 316: 61-66.
13. De Bellefeuille C, Morrison CA, Tannock IF. The fate of abstracts submitted to a cancer meeting: Factors which influence presentation and subsequent publication. Ann Oncol 1992; 3: 187-191.
14. Egger M, Davey Smith G. Meta-analysis: Potentials and promise. BMJ 1997; 315: 1371-1374.
15. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. In Egger M, Smith DG, Altman DG (eds): Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context. London: BMJ Books, 2001: Pp 87-108.
16. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman D. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 273: 408-412.
17. Djulbegovic B, Lacevic M, Cantor A et al. The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet 2000; 356: 635-638.