Guidance offers little in the way of ethics or transparency

BMJ (Online)

Volumn 344, Issue 7854, 2012, Pages

  Rogers, Wendy ^a   Zutlevics, Tamara ^b   Raven, Melissa ^b   Jureidini, Jon ^c  

^a MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c WOMEN S AND CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; DRUG CONTROL; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG LEGISLATION; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; LETTER; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PUBLIC RELATIONS; UNITED KINGDOM;

DISCLOSURE; DRUG INDUSTRY; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HEALTH PERSONNEL; HUMANS;

EID: 84860332808     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.e2910     Document Type: Letter

References (5)

1. Dyer C. Collaboration with drug industry won't affect clinical decisions, says new guide. BMJ 2012;344:e2489. (2 April.)
2. Cegedim Strategic Data. How pharma promotion influences physician prescribing behavior. 2011. www.skainfo.com/health-care-market-reports/ Pharma%20promotional%20channels.pdf.
3. De Laat E, Windmeijer F, Douven R. How does pharmaceutical marketing influence doctors' prescribing behaviour? Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, 2002.www.centraalplanbureau.nl/sites/default/files/publicaties/ download/how-doespharmaceutical-marketing-influence-doctors-prescribing- behaviour.pdf.
4. Lo B, Field MJ, eds. Conflict of interest in medical research, education and practice. National Academies Press, 2009.
5. Steinman MA, Landefeld CS, Baron RB. Industry support of CME-are we at the tipping point? N Engl J Med 2012;366:1069-71.