Cargando…
Marketing trials, marketing tricks — how to spot them and how to stop them
BACKGROUND: Last this year in this journal, Barbour and colleagues reported a study of “marketing trials” in leading medical journals (Trials 2016;17:31). In this commentary I discuss their research, describe new analyses of the study cohort and consider measures to address marketing within academic...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5341186/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28270221 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1827-5 |
_version_ | 1782512946736267264 |
---|---|
author | Matheson, Alastair |
author_facet | Matheson, Alastair |
author_sort | Matheson, Alastair |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Last this year in this journal, Barbour and colleagues reported a study of “marketing trials” in leading medical journals (Trials 2016;17:31). In this commentary I discuss their research, describe new analyses of the study cohort and consider measures to address marketing within academic medical literature. DISCUSSION: Barbour et al. sought to identify a subgroup of “marketing trials” within leading medical journals, but in reality, nearly all industry-financed trials serve marketing functions, and many exhibit marketing-related features, including biases, in their framing, methodology or reporting. I conducted new analyses of the cohort of Barbour et al., showing that most trials funded exclusively by drug manufacturers had direct involvement of the manufacturer in design, analysis and reporting, and features supportive of product seeding. However, these commercial enterprises were without exception presented to journal readers as academic-led projects, using attributional spin, which should itself be considered an important form of marketing bias. Barbour et al. correctly conclude that commercial bias in industry clinical trials articles often requires expertise to recognize, and in many cases cannot be identified from the published journal report. Several potential remedies are discussed, including independent clinical research, data sharing, improved reporting guidance, improved tools for assessing research quality, reforms to article attribution, submission checklists and new editorial standards. CONCLUSION: Medicine’s journals have a responsibility to uphold rigorous scientific and reporting standards, require ready trials data access and ensure the commercial dimensions of research are brought prominently to their readers’ attention. Failure to meet these responsibilities constitutes an enduring threat to the integrity of biomedical literature. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1827-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5341186 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-53411862017-03-10 Marketing trials, marketing tricks — how to spot them and how to stop them Matheson, Alastair Trials Commentary BACKGROUND: Last this year in this journal, Barbour and colleagues reported a study of “marketing trials” in leading medical journals (Trials 2016;17:31). In this commentary I discuss their research, describe new analyses of the study cohort and consider measures to address marketing within academic medical literature. DISCUSSION: Barbour et al. sought to identify a subgroup of “marketing trials” within leading medical journals, but in reality, nearly all industry-financed trials serve marketing functions, and many exhibit marketing-related features, including biases, in their framing, methodology or reporting. I conducted new analyses of the cohort of Barbour et al., showing that most trials funded exclusively by drug manufacturers had direct involvement of the manufacturer in design, analysis and reporting, and features supportive of product seeding. However, these commercial enterprises were without exception presented to journal readers as academic-led projects, using attributional spin, which should itself be considered an important form of marketing bias. Barbour et al. correctly conclude that commercial bias in industry clinical trials articles often requires expertise to recognize, and in many cases cannot be identified from the published journal report. Several potential remedies are discussed, including independent clinical research, data sharing, improved reporting guidance, improved tools for assessing research quality, reforms to article attribution, submission checklists and new editorial standards. CONCLUSION: Medicine’s journals have a responsibility to uphold rigorous scientific and reporting standards, require ready trials data access and ensure the commercial dimensions of research are brought prominently to their readers’ attention. Failure to meet these responsibilities constitutes an enduring threat to the integrity of biomedical literature. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1827-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-03-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5341186/ /pubmed/28270221 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1827-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Commentary Matheson, Alastair Marketing trials, marketing tricks — how to spot them and how to stop them |
title | Marketing trials, marketing tricks — how to spot them and how to stop them |
title_full | Marketing trials, marketing tricks — how to spot them and how to stop them |
title_fullStr | Marketing trials, marketing tricks — how to spot them and how to stop them |
title_full_unstemmed | Marketing trials, marketing tricks — how to spot them and how to stop them |
title_short | Marketing trials, marketing tricks — how to spot them and how to stop them |
title_sort | marketing trials, marketing tricks — how to spot them and how to stop them |
topic | Commentary |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5341186/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28270221 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1827-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mathesonalastair marketingtrialsmarketingtrickshowtospotthemandhowtostopthem |