From Optimism to Disillusion about Commitment to Transparency in the Medico-Industrial Complex_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

Corresponding author：

Keywords：

制药企业; 发表偏倚; 临床试验注册

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Citation： Iain Chalmers. From Optimism to Disillusion about Commitment to Transparency in the Medico-Industrial Complex. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2006, 06(9): 617-621. doi: Copy

1.	National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit. A Classified Bibliography of Controlled Trials In Perinatal Medicine 1940-1984. Oxford: Oxford University Press (for the World Health Organization), 1985.
2.	Simes RJ. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncology, 1986; 4: 1529–1541.
3.	Hetherington J, Dickersin K, Chalmers I, et al. Retrospective and prospective identification of unpublished controlled trials: lessons from a survey of obstetricians and pediatricians. Pediatrics, 1989; 84: 374–380.
4.	Chalmers I. Under-reporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA, 1990; 263: 1405–1408.
5.	Hemminki E. Study of information submitted by drug companies to licensing authorities. BMJ, 1980; 280: 833–836.
6.	Lock S, Wells F. Preface to the second edition. In: Lock S, Wells F, eds. Fraud and Misconduct In Medical Research. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 1996: xi–xii.
7.	Sykes R. Being a modern pharmaceutical company. BMJ, 1998; 317: 1172.
8.	Gibbs T, Wager E. Realities of trial registration: the Glaxo Wellcome experience. Int J Pharmaceut Med, 2000; 14: 203–105.
9.	Wager E, Field EA, Grossman L. Good Publication Practice for pharmaceutical companies. Curr Med Res Opinion, 2003; 19: 149–154.
10.	http://www.gpp-guidelines.org.
11.	Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine. Ethical Issues Working Group. Ethics in pharmaceutical medicine. Int J Pharmaceut Med, 1998; 12: 193–198.
12.	Wells F, Lunnon MW. First Report of the Ethics Sub-Group. Society of Pharmaceutical Medicine. Int J Pharmaceut Med, 2000; 14: 58–64.
13.	Melander H, Ahlqvist-Rastad J, Meijer G, et al. Evidence b(i)ased medicine—selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ, 2003; 326: 1171–1173.
14.	Djulbegovic B, Lacevic M, Cantor A, et al. The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet, 2000; 356: 635–638.
15.	Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, et al. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ, 2003; 326: 1167–1170.
16.	Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D, et al. Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. Can Med Assoc J, 2004; 170: 477–480.
17.	Gardner W, Lidz CW. Failures to publish pharmaceutical clinical trials. Proceedings of The 5th International Congress On Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, Chicago, September 2005.
18.	Yank V, Rennie D, Bero L. Are authors’ financial ties with pharmaceutical companies associated with positive results or conclusions in metaanalyses on antihypertensive medications? Proceedings of The 5th International Congress On Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, Chicago, September 2005.
19.	Jørgensen AW, Gøtzche P. Sponsorship, bias, and methodology: Cochrane reviews compared with industry-sponsored meta-analyses of the same drugs. Proceedings of The 5th International Congress On Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, Chicago, September 2005.
20.	Heres S, Davis J, Maino K, et al. Why olanzapine beats risperidone, risperidone beats quetiapine, and quetiapine beats olanzapine: an exploratory analysis of head to head comparison studies of second generation anti-psychotics. Am J Psychiat, 2006; 163: 185–194.
21.	Fister K. At the frontier of biomedical publication: Chicago 2005. BMJ, 2006; 331: 838-840.
22.	Chalmers I. In the dark. Drug companies should be forced to publish all the results of clinical trials. How else can we know the truth about their products. New Scientist 6 March 2004:19.
23.	Pearn J, Chalmers I. Publish and be applauded. New Scientist 6 January 1996: 40.
24.	Herxheimer A. Open access to industry’s clinically relevant data. BMJ, 2004; 329: 64–65.
25.	Zarin DA, Tse T, Ide NC. Trial registration at ClinicalTrials.gov between May and October 2005. N Engl J Med, 2006; 353: 2779–2787.
26.	House of Commons Health Committee. The Influence of The Pharmaceutical Industry, 4th Report of Session 2004-05. London: Stationery Office, 2005.
27.	Angell M. The Truth About The Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What To Do About It. New York: Random House, 2004.
28.	Vandenbroucke JP. Without new rules for industry-sponsored research, science will cease to exist. Rapid response on bmj.com, posted 14 December 2005 [http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/ eletters/331/7529/1350].
29.	Kassirer J. On The Take: How Medicine’s Complicity With Big Business Can Endanger Your Health. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
30.	Sim I, Chan A-W, Gu¨lmezog˘lu AM, et al. Clinical trial registration: transparency is the watchword. Lancet, 2006; 367: 1631–1633.

1. National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit. A Classified Bibliography of Controlled Trials In Perinatal Medicine 1940-1984. Oxford: Oxford University Press (for the World Health Organization), 1985.
2. Simes RJ. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncology, 1986; 4: 1529–1541.
3. Hetherington J, Dickersin K, Chalmers I, et al. Retrospective and prospective identification of unpublished controlled trials: lessons from a survey of obstetricians and pediatricians. Pediatrics, 1989; 84: 374–380.
4. Chalmers I. Under-reporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA, 1990; 263: 1405–1408.
5. Hemminki E. Study of information submitted by drug companies to licensing authorities. BMJ, 1980; 280: 833–836.
6. Lock S, Wells F. Preface to the second edition. In: Lock S, Wells F, eds. Fraud and Misconduct In Medical Research. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 1996: xi–xii.
7. Sykes R. Being a modern pharmaceutical company. BMJ, 1998; 317: 1172.
8. Gibbs T, Wager E. Realities of trial registration: the Glaxo Wellcome experience. Int J Pharmaceut Med, 2000; 14: 203–105.
9. Wager E, Field EA, Grossman L. Good Publication Practice for pharmaceutical companies. Curr Med Res Opinion, 2003; 19: 149–154.
10. http://www.gpp-guidelines.org.
11. Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine. Ethical Issues Working Group. Ethics in pharmaceutical medicine. Int J Pharmaceut Med, 1998; 12: 193–198.
12. Wells F, Lunnon MW. First Report of the Ethics Sub-Group. Society of Pharmaceutical Medicine. Int J Pharmaceut Med, 2000; 14: 58–64.
13. Melander H, Ahlqvist-Rastad J, Meijer G, et al. Evidence b(i)ased medicine—selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ, 2003; 326: 1171–1173.
14. Djulbegovic B, Lacevic M, Cantor A, et al. The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet, 2000; 356: 635–638.
15. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, et al. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ, 2003; 326: 1167–1170.
16. Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D, et al. Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. Can Med Assoc J, 2004; 170: 477–480.
17. Gardner W, Lidz CW. Failures to publish pharmaceutical clinical trials. Proceedings of The 5th International Congress On Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, Chicago, September 2005.
18. Yank V, Rennie D, Bero L. Are authors’ financial ties with pharmaceutical companies associated with positive results or conclusions in metaanalyses on antihypertensive medications? Proceedings of The 5th International Congress On Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, Chicago, September 2005.
19. Jørgensen AW, Gøtzche P. Sponsorship, bias, and methodology: Cochrane reviews compared with industry-sponsored meta-analyses of the same drugs. Proceedings of The 5th International Congress On Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, Chicago, September 2005.
20. Heres S, Davis J, Maino K, et al. Why olanzapine beats risperidone, risperidone beats quetiapine, and quetiapine beats olanzapine: an exploratory analysis of head to head comparison studies of second generation anti-psychotics. Am J Psychiat, 2006; 163: 185–194.
21. Fister K. At the frontier of biomedical publication: Chicago 2005. BMJ, 2006; 331: 838-840.
22. Chalmers I. In the dark. Drug companies should be forced to publish all the results of clinical trials. How else can we know the truth about their products. New Scientist 6 March 2004:19.
23. Pearn J, Chalmers I. Publish and be applauded. New Scientist 6 January 1996: 40.
24. Herxheimer A. Open access to industry’s clinically relevant data. BMJ, 2004; 329: 64–65.
25. Zarin DA, Tse T, Ide NC. Trial registration at ClinicalTrials.gov between May and October 2005. N Engl J Med, 2006; 353: 2779–2787.
26. House of Commons Health Committee. The Influence of The Pharmaceutical Industry, 4th Report of Session 2004-05. London: Stationery Office, 2005.
27. Angell M. The Truth About The Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What To Do About It. New York: Random House, 2004.
28. Vandenbroucke JP. Without new rules for industry-sponsored research, science will cease to exist. Rapid response on bmj.com, posted 14 December 2005 [http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/ eletters/331/7529/1350].
29. Kassirer J. On The Take: How Medicine’s Complicity With Big Business Can Endanger Your Health. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
30. Sim I, Chan A-W, Gu¨lmezog˘lu AM, et al. Clinical trial registration: transparency is the watchword. Lancet, 2006; 367: 1631–1633.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

From Optimism to Disillusion about Commitment to Transparency in the Medico-Industrial Complex

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Format

Content