The Lancet, Volume 378, Issue 9785, Page 30
Geoffrey Spurling, Peter Mansfield,
Geoffrey Spurling, Peter Mansfield,
The Editor of The Lancet, Richard Horton, is famously quoted as saying: “Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry.”1 This sentiment is echoed by former New England Journal of Medicine Editor, Marcia Angell, who describes information from the pharmaceutical industry as coming, “mixed with hyperbole, bias and misinformation, and there is often no way to tell which is which.”2 Both of these statements were cited by the Editors of the Journal of Emergency Medicine Australasia in their decision earlier this year to ban drug company advertising from their journal.3
We published a systematic review of 40 years of scientific literature dealing with the effect of information from pharmaceutical companies on physicians' prescribing.4 Some studies found that journal advertisements were more strongly associated with prescribing than the scientific articles in the same journals; others found advertising associated with less rational prescribing and greater prescribing costs. However, none found associations between exposure to journal advertisements and improved quality of prescribing, reduced cost, or reduced prescribing overall.4
Our review was published in PLoS Medicine—a top-tier medical journal that does not accept pharmaceutical advertising. The Editors' summary of our review concluded that “the findings support the case for reforms to reduce negative influence to prescribing from pharmaceutical promotion.”
Is The Lancet prepared to take a stand against drug company advertisements similar to the Journal of Emergency Medicine Australasia?
We declare that we have no conflicts of interest.
