Relationships with industry

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 111, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 799-804

[No Author Info available]

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPENSATION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SOCIETY; NOTE; PATIENT REFERRAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REIMBURSEMENT; RESPONSIBILITY; ARTICLE; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DRUG INDUSTRY; ECONOMICS; ETHICS; GYNECOLOGY; HUMAN; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; OBSTETRICS; PHYSICIAN;

CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DISCLOSURE; DRUG INDUSTRY; FINANCIAL SUPPORT; GYNECOLOGY; HUMANS; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; OBSTETRICS; PHYSICIANS;

EID: 42449096409     PISSN: 00297844     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318169f712     Document Type: Note

References (24)

1. Wazana A. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: is a gift ever just a gift? JAMA 2000;283:373-80.
2. Morgan MA, Dana J, Loewenstein G, Zinberg S, Schulkin J. Interactions of doctors with the pharmaceutical industry. J Med Ethics 2006;32:559-63.
3. Kumar P, Zaugg AM. IMS review: steady but not stellar. MM&M May 2003. p. 50-63. Available at: http://www.imshealth.com/vgn/images/portal/ cit_40000873/42912029Business%20Watch.pdf. Retrieved November 8, 2007.
4. Studdert DM, Mello MM, Brennan TA. Financial conflicts of interest in physicians' relationships with the pharmaceutical industry-self - regulation in the shadow of federal prosecution. N Engl J Med 2004;351:1891-900.
5. Katz D, Caplan AL, Merz JF. All gifts large and small: toward an understanding of the ethics of pharmaceutical industry gift-giving. Am J Bioeth 2003;3:39-46.
6. Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J, Miller LG, Cleary PD, Blumenthal D. A national survey of physician-industry relationships. N Engl J Med 2007;356:1742-50.
7. American Medical Association. Gifts to physicians from industry. In: Code of medical ethics of the American Medical Association: current opinions with annotations. 2006-2007 ed. Chicago (IL): AMA; 2006. p. 212-6.
8. American Medical Association. Clarification of opinion 8.061 "gifts to physicians from industry." In: Code of medical ethics of the American Medical Association: current opinions with annotations. 2006-2007 ed. Chicago (IL): AMA; 2006. p. 216-24.
9. Coyle SL. Physician-industry relations. Part 1: individual physicians. Ethics and Human Rights Committee, American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med 2002;136:396-402.
10. Coyle SL. Physician-industry relations. Part 2: organizational issues. Ethics and Human Rights Committee, American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med 2002;136:403-6.
11. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Principles to guide the relationship between graduate medical education and industry. Chicago (IL): ACGME; 2002. Available at:http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/positionPapers/ pp_GMEGuide.pdf. Retrieved November 8, 2007.
12. Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education. ACCME standards for commercial support. Standards to ensure the independence of CME activities. Chicago (IL): ACCME; 2004. Available at: http://www.accme.org/dir_docs/ doc_upload/68b2902a-fb73-44d1-872580a1504e520c_uploaddocument.pdf. Retrieved November 8, 2007.
13. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Code on interactions with healthcare professionals. Washington, DC: PhRMA; 2002. Available at: http://www.phrma.org/files/PhRMA%20Code.pdf. Retrieved November 8, 2007.
14. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Principles on conduct of clinical trials and communication of clinical trial results. Washington, DC: PhRMA; 2002. Available at: http://www.phrma.org/files/ Clinical%20 Trials.pdf. Retrieved November 8, 2007.
15. Advanced Medical Technology Association. Code of ethics on interactions with health care professionals. Washington, DC: AdvaMed; 2003. Available at: http://www.advamed.org/NR/rdonlyres/FA437A5F-4C75-43B2-A900-C9470BA8DFA7/0/ coe_with_faqs_41505.pdf. Retrieved November 8, 2007.
16. OIG compliance program guidance for pharmaceutical manufacturers. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. Fed Regist 2003;68:23731-43.
17. American Medical Student Association. National Pharm Free Day. Reston (VA): AMSA; 2006. Available at: http://www.amsa.org/prof/pharmfree.cfm. Retrieved November 8, 2007.
18. Brennan TA, Rothman DJ, Blank L, Blumenthal D, Chimonas SC, Cohen JJ, et al. Health industry practices that create conflicts of interest: a policy proposal for academic medical centers. JAMA 2006;295:429-33.
19. Stanford University School of Medicine. Policy and guidelines for interactions between the Stanford University School of Medicine, the Stanford Hospital and Clinics, and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital with the pharmaceutical, biotech, medical device, and hospital and research equipment and supplies industries ("industry"). Stanford (CA): SUSM; 2006. Available at: http://med.stanford.edu/coi/siip/documents/siip_policy_aug06.pdf. Retrieved November 8, 2007.
20. Adair RF, Holmgren LR. Do drug samples influence resident prescribing behavior? A randomized trial. Am J Med 2005;118:881-4.
21. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Code of professional ethics of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Washington, DC: ACOG; 2004. Available at: http://www.acog.org/from_home/acogcode.pdf. Retrieved November 8, 2007.
22. Protection of human subjects, 42 C.F.R. §46 (2006).
23. American Medical Association. Conflicts of interest: biomedical research. In: Code of medical ethics of the American Medical Association: current opinions with annotations. 2006-2007 ed. Chicago (IL): AMA; 2006. p. 185-7.
24. Chren MM. Independent investigators and for-profit companies. Guidelines for biomedical scientists considering funding by industry. Arch Dermatol 1994;130:432-7.