Peer review comments on drug trials submitted to medical journals differ depending on sponsorship, results and acceptance: A retrospective cohort study

BMJ Open

Volumn 5, Issue 9, 2015, Pages

  Van Lent, Marlies ^a   IntHout, Joanna ^a   Out, Henk Jan ^a,b  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTENT ANALYSIS; DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH; DRUG SCREENING; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; REVIEW; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DECISION MAKING; DRUG INDUSTRY; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; PROCEDURES;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DECISION MAKING; DRUG INDUSTRY; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC;

EID: 84956922481     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007961     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. 2013. http://www. icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf
2. Patel J. Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials. BMC Med 2014;12:128.
3. Black N, van Rooyen S, Godlee F, et al. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal? JAMA 1998;280:231-3.
4. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, et al. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004;328:673.
5. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, et al. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J R Soc Med 2008;101:507-14.
6. Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, et al. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;(2):MR000016.
7. Hopewell S, Collins GS, Boutron I, et al. Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study. BMJ 2014;349:g4145.
8. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, et al. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial. JAMA 1998;280:234-7.
9. Bordage G. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med 2001;76:889-96.
10. Turcotte C, Drolet P, Girard M. Study design, originality and overall consistency influence acceptance or rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Journal. Can J Anaesth 2004;51:549-56.
11. Emerson GB, Warme WJ, Wolf FM, et al. Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 2010;170:1934-9.
12. Abbot NC, Ernst E. Publication bias: direction of outcome is less important than scientific quality. Perfusion 1998;11:182-4.
13. van Lent M, Overbeke J, Out HJ. Role of editorial and peer review processes in publication bias: analysis of drug trials submitted to eight medical journals. PLo S ONE 2014;9:e104846.
14. van Lent M, Overbeke J, Out HJ. Recommendations for a uniform assessment of publication bias related to funding source. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013;13:120.
15. BMJ. Guidance for peer reviewers. http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-reviewers/guidance-peer-reviewers (accessed March 2014).
16. Groves T. BMJ Peer reviewer training part II: What do editors want from reviewers?. http://www.bmj.com/sites/default/files/attachments/resources/2011/07/presentation-2what-do-editors-want-reviewers.ppt (accessed Mar 2014).
17. Diabetologia. Guidance for reviewers. http://www.diabetologia-journal.org/guidanceforreviewers.html (accessed Mar 2014).
18. Byrne DW. Common reasons for rejecting manuscripts at medical journals: a survey of editors and peer reviewers. Sci Ed 2000;23:39-44.
19. Lippert S, Callaham ML, Lo B. Perceptions of conflict of interest disclosures among peer reviewers. PLo S ONE 2011;6:e26900.
20. Mathieu S, Chan AW, Ravaud P. Use of trial register information during the peer review process. PLo S ONE 2013;8:e59910.
21. de Vet HC, Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, et al. Clinicians are right not to like Cohen's κ. BMJ 2013;346:f2125.
22. Bero LA, Rennie D. Influences on the quality of published drug studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996;12:209-37.
23. Angell M. The truth about the drug companies. How they deceive us and what to do about it. New York: Random House Trade, 2005.
24. Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, et al. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;12: MR000033.
25. Schott G, Pachl H, Limbach U, et al. The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences. Part 1: a qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on the findings, protocols, and quality of drug trials. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2010;107:279-85.
26. Jones R, Younie S, Macallister A, et al. A comparison of the scientific quality of publicly and privately funded randomized controlled drug trials. J Eval Clin Pract 2010;16:1322-5.
27. Djulbegovic B, Lacevic M, Cantor A, et al. The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet 2000;356:635-8.
28. van Lent M, Rongen GA, Out HJ. Shortcomings of protocols of drug trials in relation to sponsorship as identified by Research Ethics Committees: analysis of comments raised during ethical review. BMC Med Ethics 2014;15:83.
29. Mathieu S, Giraudeau B, Soubrier M, et al. Misleading abstract conclusions in randomized controlled trials in rheumatology: comparison of the abstract conclusions and the results section. Joint Bone Spine 2012;79:262-7.
30. Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, et al. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA 2010;303:2058-64.
31. Boutron I, Altman DG, Hopewell S, et al. Impact of spin in the abstracts of articles reporting results of randomized controlled trials in the field of cancer: the SPIIN randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:4120-6.
32. Groves T, on behalf of the BMJ Group. Peer Review-Written evidence submitted by the BMJ Group (PR 41). 2011. http://www. publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/856/m41.htm
33. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, et al. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA 2002;287:2784-6.
34. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 2006;99:178-82.
35. Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998;280:237-40.
36. Kravitz RL, Franks P, Feldman MD, et al. Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care? PLo S ONE2010;5:e10072.
37. Mulligan A, Hall L, Raphael E. Peer review in a changing world: an international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. J Am Soc Info Sci Technol 2013;64:132-61.