Inside the world of medical journals

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pag...th/3513791.stm


Inside the world of medical journals
By Ray Dunne
BBC News Online health staff


One of the world's most respected medical journals says it should never have
published a controversial paper on MMR.
What steps do journals take to ensure studies are robust and trustworthy?


Richard Horton sees thousands of research papers pass his desk every year.
As editor of The Lancet, he decides what is published in one of the world's
most prestigious journals.

In 1997, he received a paper from Andrew Wakefield, a doctor at the Royal
Free Hospital in Hampstead, north London.

Dr Wakefield and colleagues had carried out tests on 12 children. They
claimed to have found a possible link between the three-in-one MMR vaccine
and autism and bowel disease.


Around three out of four authors in medical journals have some sort of
conflict of interest
Dr Richard Smith,
British Medical Journal editor

The study was published in 1998 and its findings sparked a media furore.
Many parents subsequently decided to shun the three-in-one jab.
Last week, Dr Horton was told Dr Wakefield may have had a potential conflict
of interest.

Within two days, The Lancet editor had issued a statement acknowledging the
potential conflict of interest. He told journalists the study had "fatal
flaws" and should never have been published.

The Lancet maintains it should have been told that Dr Wakefield was being
paid to carry out another similar study.

It says Dr Wakefield should have been aware of the potential conflict of
interest after reading the journal's guidelines on the issue.

In 1998, these stated: "The conflict of interest test is a simple one. Is
there anything...that would embarrass you if it were to emerge after
publication that you had not declared it?"

Full declarations

Today, those guidelines are slightly more detailed. The Lancet now demands
that contributors declare all potential financial conflicts of interest.

It no longer accepts articles from anyone who has been employed by or held
shares in a relevant company or its competitors during the previous years.


Possible sanctions against doctors
A letter of explanation pointing out genuine misunderstandings
A letter of reprimand and warning as to future contact
A formal letter to the relevant head of institution or funding body
Publication of a notice of redundant publication or plagiarism
An editorial giving full details of the misconduct
Refusal to accept future submissions from those involve for a stated
period
Formal withdrawal or retraction of the paper
Reporting the case to the General Medical Council

It will accept articles from people who have received money towards
research, travel or accommodation from relevant companies but only if these
are declared in the published paper.
The new rules reflect a growing trend by medical journals to be seen to more
transparent.

"People have really only started looking at this seriously in the past few
years," says Dr Richard Nicholson, editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics.

"The pressure has come from the American journals. Some journals have had
big problems with undeclared conflicts of interest."

Last year, the Nature Publishing Group announced that it would require all
authors to declare if they had financial ties to products.

It followed the news that the author of one paper on experimental treatments
for depression held a patent, stock options and was being paid consultancy
fees by a company named in the article.

In 2002, the New England Journal of Medicine introduced new rules banning
articles by people with "significant" financial interests in relevant
companies - namely those who have received $10,000 or more from these
companies.

"Around three out of four authors in medical journals have some sort of
conflict of interest," says Dr Richard Smith, editor of the British Medical
Journal.

"For some, this is being paid to go to a meeting or receiving a research
grant.

"A few years ago, very few of these conflicts of interests or competing
interests were declared. Things have changed but we still have a way to go."

In 1997, some of the editors of the leading medical journals got together to
form the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

It aimed to provide editors with a sounding board and help them "to deal
with possible breaches in research and publication ethics".

National guidelines

In 1999, they issued guidelines aimed at stamping out research fraud and
potential conflict of interests.

They state that editors and contributors must always declare potential
conflicts of interests. "If in doubt, disclose," they advise.

The committee has also drawn up sanctions to be taken against doctors who
fail to stick to the rules.

They range from a simple letter pointing out errors or misunderstandings to
a decision to report the doctor to the General Medical Council, which has
the power to ban them from practising medicine.

This latest controversy has led to calls for these guidelines to be
tightened up.

"Guidelines need to be sufficiently clear so that people have absolutely no
excuse," says Dr Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat MP and a member of the
British Medical Association's medical ethics committee.

"It is vital for the credibility of science that all possible steps are
taken to ensure that everything is above board and everything is seen to
above board."

Dr Smith, who is also vice-chair of COPE, acknowledges that more needs to be
done.

"The problem has been that people have believed the myth that science is a
pure objective activity.

"It's not. It's a human activity and it's prone to all of the joys and
downsides of being a human activity. We've fooled ourselves."

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
. net...



re journals
The Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, although in publication for 38
years, has never been listed on the government database MEDLINE.



we all know why

"JOHN" wrote:


"Jan Drew" wrote in message
.net...



re journals
The Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, although in publication for 38
years, has never been listed on the government database MEDLINE.



we all know why


It's a disgrace!!! The health articles in News Of The World and the
National Enquirer aren't indexed either. And don't get me started on
organised medicine's suppression of the medical facts in Nexus.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

"JOHN" wrote in message
...

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
. net...



re journals
The Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, although in publication for 38
years, has never been listed on the government database MEDLINE.



we all know why

I certainly. Orthomolecular medicine is pure nonsense. I am glad my
government doesn't waste time indexing that.

Jeff

JOHN wrote:
"Jan Drew" wrote in message
. net...


re journals
The Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, although in publication for 38
years, has never been listed on the government database MEDLINE.



we all know why

Yes, they do not index health fiction.

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...
"JOHN" wrote:


"Jan Drew" wrote in message
y.net...

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pag...bc.co.uk/1/hi/...


Inside the world of medical journals
By Ray Dunne
BBC News Online health staff


One of the world's most respected medical journals says it should never have
published a controversial paper on MMR.
What steps do journals take to ensure studies are robust and trustworthy?


Richard Horton sees thousands of research papers pass his desk every year.
As editor of The Lancet, he decides what is published in one of the world's
most prestigious journals.


In 1997, he received a paper from Andrew Wakefield, a doctor at the Royal
Free Hospital in Hampstead, north London.


Dr Wakefield and colleagues had carried out tests on 12 children. They
claimed to have found a possible link between the three-in-one MMR vaccine
and autism and bowel disease.


Around three out of four authors in medical journals have some sort of
conflict of interest
Dr Richard Smith,
British Medical Journal editor


The study was published in 1998 and its findings sparked a media furore.
Many parents subsequently decided to shun the three-in-one jab.
Last week, Dr Horton was told Dr Wakefield may have had a potential conflict
of interest.


Within two days, The Lancet editor had issued a statement acknowledging the
potential conflict of interest. He told journalists the study had "fatal
flaws" and should never have been published.


The Lancet maintains it should have been told that Dr Wakefield was being
paid to carry out another similar study.


It says Dr Wakefield should have been aware of the potential conflict of
interest after reading the journal's guidelines on the issue.


In 1998, these stated: "The conflict of interest test is a simple one. Is
there anything...that would embarrass you if it were to emerge after
publication that you had not declared it?"


Full declarations


Today, those guidelines are slightly more detailed. The Lancet now demands
that contributors declare all potential financial conflicts of interest.


It no longer accepts articles from anyone who has been employed by or held
shares in a relevant company or its competitors during the previous years.


Possible sanctions against doctors
A letter of explanation pointing out genuine misunderstandings
A letter of reprimand and warning as to future contact
A formal letter to the relevant head of institution or funding body
Publication of a notice of redundant publication or plagiarism
An editorial giving full details of the misconduct
Refusal to accept future submissions from those involve for a stated
period
Formal withdrawal or retraction of the paper
Reporting the case to the General Medical Council


It will accept articles from people who have received money towards
research, travel or accommodation from relevant companies but only if these
are declared in the published paper.
The new rules reflect a growing trend by medical journals to be seen to more
transparent.


"People have really only started looking at this seriously in the past few
years," says Dr Richard Nicholson, editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics.


"The pressure has come from the American journals. Some journals have had
big problems with undeclared conflicts of interest."


Last year, the Nature Publishing Group announced that it would require all
authors to declare if they had financial ties to products.


It followed the news that the author of one paper on experimental treatments
for depression held a patent, stock options and was being paid consultancy
fees by a company named in the article.


In 2002, the New England Journal of Medicine introduced new rules banning
articles by people with "significant" financial interests in relevant
companies - namely those who have received $10,000 or more from these
companies.


"Around three out of four authors in medical journals have some sort of
conflict of interest," says Dr Richard Smith, editor of the British Medical
Journal.


"For some, this is being paid to go to a meeting or receiving a research
grant.


"A few years ago, very few of these conflicts of interests or competing
interests were declared. Things have changed but we still have a way to go."


In 1997, some of the editors of the leading medical journals got together to
form the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).


It aimed to provide editors with a sounding board and help them "to deal
with possible breaches in research and publication ethics".


National guidelines


In 1999, they issued guidelines aimed at stamping out research fraud and
potential conflict of interests.


They state that editors and contributors must always declare potential
conflicts of interests. "If in doubt, disclose," they advise.


The committee has also drawn up sanctions to be taken against doctors who
fail to stick to the rules.


They range from a simple letter pointing out errors or misunderstandings to
a decision to report the doctor to the General Medical Council, which has
the power to ban them from practising medicine.


This latest controversy has led to calls for these guidelines to be
tightened up.


"Guidelines need to be sufficiently clear so that people have absolutely no
excuse," says Dr Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat MP and a member of the
British Medical Association's medical ethics committee.


"It is vital for the credibility of science that all possible steps are
taken to ensure that everything is above board and everything is seen to
above board."


Dr Smith, who is also vice-chair of COPE, acknowledges that more needs to be
done.


"The problem has been that people have believed the myth that science is a
pure objective activity.


"It's not. It's a human activity and it's prone to all of the joys and
downsides of being a human activity. We've fooled ourselves."






re journals
The Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, although in publication for 38
years, has never been listed on the government database MEDLINE.



we all know why



snip irrelevancy
--
Peter Bowditch

"Jeff" wrote in message
news:qv4Ah.3239$TG6.1544@trnddc06...

"JOHN" wrote in message
...

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
. net...






re journals
The Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, although in publication for 38
years, has never been listed on the government database MEDLINE.



we all know why

I certainly. Orthomolecular medicine is pure nonsense. I am glad my
government doesn't waste time indexing that.

Jeff

"Jeff" wrote in message
news:qv4Ah.3239$TG6.1544@trnddc06...

"JOHN" wrote in message
...

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
. net...

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pag...bc.co.uk/1/hi/...


Inside the world of medical journals
By Ray Dunne
BBC News Online health staff


One of the world's most respected medical journals says it should never have
published a controversial paper on MMR.
What steps do journals take to ensure studies are robust and trustworthy?


Richard Horton sees thousands of research papers pass his desk every year.
As editor of The Lancet, he decides what is published in one of the world's
most prestigious journals.


In 1997, he received a paper from Andrew Wakefield, a doctor at the Royal
Free Hospital in Hampstead, north London.


Dr Wakefield and colleagues had carried out tests on 12 children. They
claimed to have found a possible link between the three-in-one MMR vaccine
and autism and bowel disease.


Around three out of four authors in medical journals have some sort of
conflict of interest
Dr Richard Smith,
British Medical Journal editor


The study was published in 1998 and its findings sparked a media furore.
Many parents subsequently decided to shun the three-in-one jab.
Last week, Dr Horton was told Dr Wakefield may have had a potential conflict
of interest.


Within two days, The Lancet editor had issued a statement acknowledging the
potential conflict of interest. He told journalists the study had "fatal
flaws" and should never have been published.


The Lancet maintains it should have been told that Dr Wakefield was being
paid to carry out another similar study.


It says Dr Wakefield should have been aware of the potential conflict of
interest after reading the journal's guidelines on the issue.


In 1998, these stated: "The conflict of interest test is a simple one. Is
there anything...that would embarrass you if it were to emerge after
publication that you had not declared it?"


Full declarations


Today, those guidelines are slightly more detailed. The Lancet now demands
that contributors declare all potential financial conflicts of interest.


It no longer accepts articles from anyone who has been employed by or held
shares in a relevant company or its competitors during the previous years.


Possible sanctions against doctors
A letter of explanation pointing out genuine misunderstandings
A letter of reprimand and warning as to future contact
A formal letter to the relevant head of institution or funding body
Publication of a notice of redundant publication or plagiarism
An editorial giving full details of the misconduct
Refusal to accept future submissions from those involve for a stated
period
Formal withdrawal or retraction of the paper
Reporting the case to the General Medical Council


It will accept articles from people who have received money towards
research, travel or accommodation from relevant companies but only if these
are declared in the published paper.
The new rules reflect a growing trend by medical journals to be seen to more
transparent.


"People have really only started looking at this seriously in the past few
years," says Dr Richard Nicholson, editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics.


"The pressure has come from the American journals. Some journals have had
big problems with undeclared conflicts of interest."


Last year, the Nature Publishing Group announced that it would require all
authors to declare if they had financial ties to products.


It followed the news that the author of one paper on experimental treatments
for depression held a patent, stock options and was being paid consultancy
fees by a company named in the article.


In 2002, the New England Journal of Medicine introduced new rules banning
articles by people with "significant" financial interests in relevant
companies - namely those who have received $10,000 or more from these
companies.


"Around three out of four authors in medical journals have some sort of
conflict of interest," says Dr Richard Smith, editor of the British Medical
Journal.


"For some, this is being paid to go to a meeting or receiving a research
grant.


"A few years ago, very few of these conflicts of interests or competing
interests were declared. Things have changed but we still have a way to go."


In 1997, some of the editors of the leading medical journals got together to
form the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).


It aimed to provide editors with a sounding board and help them "to deal
with possible breaches in research and publication ethics".


National guidelines


In 1999, they issued guidelines aimed at stamping out research fraud and
potential conflict of interests.


They state that editors and contributors must always declare potential
conflicts of interests. "If in doubt, disclose," they advise.


The committee has also drawn up sanctions to be taken against doctors who
fail to stick to the rules.


They range from a simple letter pointing out errors or misunderstandings to
a decision to report the doctor to the General Medical Council, which has
the power to ban them from practising medicine.


This latest controversy has led to calls for these guidelines to be
tightened up.


"Guidelines need to be sufficiently clear so that people have absolutely no
excuse," says Dr Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat MP and a member of the
British Medical Association's medical ethics committee.


"It is vital for the credibility of science that all possible steps are
taken to ensure that everything is above board and everything is seen to
above board."


Dr Smith, who is also vice-chair of COPE, acknowledges that more needs to be
done.


"The problem has been that people have believed the myth that science is a
pure objective activity.


"It's not. It's a human activity and it's prone to all of the joys and
downsides of being a human activity. We've fooled ourselves."






re journals
The Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, although in publication for 38
years, has never been listed on the government database MEDLINE.



we all know why

I certainly. Orthomolecular medicine is pure nonsense. I am glad my
government doesn't waste time indexing that.

Jeff

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
news66Ah.2450$g82.64@trndny09...
JOHN wrote:
"Jan Drew" wrote in message
. net...

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pag...bc.co.uk/1/hi/...


Inside the world of medical journals
By Ray Dunne
BBC News Online health staff


One of the world's most respected medical journals says it should never have
published a controversial paper on MMR.
What steps do journals take to ensure studies are robust and trustworthy?


Richard Horton sees thousands of research papers pass his desk every year.
As editor of The Lancet, he decides what is published in one of the world's
most prestigious journals.


In 1997, he received a paper from Andrew Wakefield, a doctor at the Royal
Free Hospital in Hampstead, north London.


Dr Wakefield and colleagues had carried out tests on 12 children. They
claimed to have found a possible link between the three-in-one MMR vaccine
and autism and bowel disease.


Around three out of four authors in medical journals have some sort of
conflict of interest
Dr Richard Smith,
British Medical Journal editor


The study was published in 1998 and its findings sparked a media furore.
Many parents subsequently decided to shun the three-in-one jab.
Last week, Dr Horton was told Dr Wakefield may have had a potential conflict
of interest.


Within two days, The Lancet editor had issued a statement acknowledging the
potential conflict of interest. He told journalists the study had "fatal
flaws" and should never have been published.


The Lancet maintains it should have been told that Dr Wakefield was being
paid to carry out another similar study.


It says Dr Wakefield should have been aware of the potential conflict of
interest after reading the journal's guidelines on the issue.


In 1998, these stated: "The conflict of interest test is a simple one. Is
there anything...that would embarrass you if it were to emerge after
publication that you had not declared it?"


Full declarations


Today, those guidelines are slightly more detailed. The Lancet now demands
that contributors declare all potential financial conflicts of interest.


It no longer accepts articles from anyone who has been employed by or held
shares in a relevant company or its competitors during the previous years.


Possible sanctions against doctors
A letter of explanation pointing out genuine misunderstandings
A letter of reprimand and warning as to future contact
A formal letter to the relevant head of institution or funding body
Publication of a notice of redundant publication or plagiarism
An editorial giving full details of the misconduct
Refusal to accept future submissions from those involve for a stated
period
Formal withdrawal or retraction of the paper
Reporting the case to the General Medical Council


It will accept articles from people who have received money towards
research, travel or accommodation from relevant companies but only if these
are declared in the published paper.
The new rules reflect a growing trend by medical journals to be seen to more
transparent.


"People have really only started looking at this seriously in the past few
years," says Dr Richard Nicholson, editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics.


"The pressure has come from the American journals. Some journals have had
big problems with undeclared conflicts of interest."


Last year, the Nature Publishing Group announced that it would require all
authors to declare if they had financial ties to products.


It followed the news that the author of one paper on experimental treatments
for depression held a patent, stock options and was being paid consultancy
fees by a company named in the article.


In 2002, the New England Journal of Medicine introduced new rules banning
articles by people with "significant" financial interests in relevant
companies - namely those who have received $10,000 or more from these
companies.


"Around three out of four authors in medical journals have some sort of
conflict of interest," says Dr Richard Smith, editor of the British Medical
Journal.


"For some, this is being paid to go to a meeting or receiving a research
grant.


"A few years ago, very few of these conflicts of interests or competing
interests were declared. Things have changed but we still have a way to go."


In 1997, some of the editors of the leading medical journals got together to
form the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).


It aimed to provide editors with a sounding board and help them "to deal
with possible breaches in research and publication ethics".


National guidelines


In 1999, they issued guidelines aimed at stamping out research fraud and
potential conflict of interests.


They state that editors and contributors must always declare potential
conflicts of interests. "If in doubt, disclose," they advise.


The committee has also drawn up sanctions to be taken against doctors who
fail to stick to the rules.


They range from a simple letter pointing out errors or misunderstandings to
a decision to report the doctor to the General Medical Council, which has
the power to ban them from practising medicine.


This latest controversy has led to calls for these guidelines to be
tightened up.


"Guidelines need to be sufficiently clear so that people have absolutely no
excuse," says Dr Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat MP and a member of the
British Medical Association's medical ethics committee.


"It is vital for the credibility of science that all possible steps are
taken to ensure that everything is above board and everything is seen to
above board."


Dr Smith, who is also vice-chair of COPE, acknowledges that more needs to be
done.


"The problem has been that people have believed the myth that science is a
pure objective activity.


"It's not. It's a human activity and it's prone to all of the joys and
downsides of being a human activity. We've fooled ourselves."





re journals
The Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, although in publication for 38
years, has never been listed on the government database MEDLINE.



we all know why

Yes, they do not index health fiction.

Care to address the conflict of interest?

I thought not.