You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 295 No. 14, April 12, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Research Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (12)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Journalology/ Peer Review/ Authorship
 •Medical Practice
 •Conflict of Interest
 •Randomized Controlled Trial
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Constraints on Publication Rights in Industry-Initiated Clinical Trials

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: Constraints on the publication rights of clinical investigators in industry-initiated trials have been described,1-2 but have been investigated in surveys that relied mainly on individuals' recall and attitudes and may have underestimated the extent of its occurrence. We examined directly the presence of constraints in trial protocols and subsequent publications.

Methods

For all 44 industry-initiated randomized trials that were approved in 1994-1995 by the Scientific-Ethical Committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg in Denmark and that resulted in publication, we compared the full trial protocols with all text in the subsequent publications (median publication year, 1999), including footnotes and acknowledgments.3 To look for changes over time as a response to new guidelines and ethical requirements, we also assessed the first 44 industry-initiated trial protocols approved in 2004 by the same committees; insufficient time had passed to assess subsequent publications.

For the 2004 protocols, committee requirements removed information that identified particular . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Peter C. Gøtzsche, MD, DrMedSci
pcg@cochrane.dk

Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, MD, PhD; Helle Krogh Johansen, MD, DrMedSci; Mette T. Haahr, BSc
Nordic Cochrane Centre
Copenhagen, Denmark

Douglas G. Altman, DSc
Centre for Statistics in Medicine
Oxford, England

An-Wen Chan, MD, DPhil
Department of Medicine
University of Toronto, Ontario



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

More regulation of industry-supported biomedical research: are we asking the right questions?
Fry-Revere and Malmstrom
J Law Med Ethics 2009;37:420-430.
 

Industry attack on academics
Gornall
BMJ 2009;338:b736-b736.
FULL TEXT  

Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols
Chan et al.
BMJ 2008;337:a2299-a2299.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Commercialism, Loss of Professionalism, and the Effect on Journals
Liesegang
Arch Ophthalmol 2008;126:1292-1295.
FULL TEXT  

Reporting Bias in Diagnostic and Prognostic Studies: Time for Action
Rifai et al.
Clin. Chem. 2008;54:1101-1103.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2006 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.