Journal Supplement Marketing: Is The Boston Globe Barking Up The Wrong Tree?
In an article published in yesterday’s Boston Globe, Stephen Smith points to pharmaceutical company sponsorship of supplements in medical journals as an example of the growing influence of drug firms on medical treatment. Smith tells the tale of a how a new guideline embracing CT scans for heart disease received the “seal of approval” from a major medical journal, the American Journal of Cardiology. To boot, guideline development was funded by a number of drug companies. Is this yet another example of the hidden ties between drug companies and researchers? I think not. Here’s why:
- Readers of supplements are informed that they are sponsored
- The authors of the guideline acknowledged that the data supporting their recommendations are sparse
- The journal did not endorse the guideline. It simply provided a forum that the authors used to communicate their point of view. Most know that supplements are generally supported by some faction, have a distinct bias and contain content that ordinarily wouldn’t survive the peer-review process.
In this case, the Globe is barking up the wrong tree. There was full disclosure — no one was trying to hide anything. One may frown upon journal supplements, but publishing them does not rise to the level of medical mischief.
Please click here to read the article.
[Via Kevin, M.D.]
