ROCHESTER, Minn. -- The Medical Publishing Insights and Practices (MPIP) initiative and its co-sponsors recently collaborated with journal editors to characterize the persistent and perceived credibility gap in reporting industry-sponsored research and to identify potential approaches to resolve it. This unique round table, hosted by MPIP, reached consensus on Ten Recommendations for Closing the Credibility Gap in Reporting Industry-Sponsored Clinical Research as reported in the May issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings.
Attendees of the roundtable agreed that important improvements have been made in the conduct and reporting of industry-sponsored studies during the last five years, but several opportunities remain for additional improvement. These include ensuring that clinical studies and publications address clinically important questions; making public all results, including negative or unfavorable ones in a timely fashion, while avoiding redundancy; and exhibiting zero tolerance for selective or biased disclosure of research results, ghostwriting and guest authorship, and inaccurate or incomplete reporting of potential conflicts of interest.
"Intended as a 'call to action' for all stakeholders, these recommendations provide a road map for authors, editors, and publishers to improve standards applicable to all medical research studies and publications by highlighting critical areas that merit attention in terms of policies, education, and other activities," notes Maja Zecevic, Ph.D., MPH, corresponding author of the paper and North American senior editor of The Lancet.
"We are extremely pleased to publish this important set of recommendations in Mayo Clinic Proceedings," says Editor-in-Chief William Lanier, M.D. "Although framed in the context of industry sponsorship, many of these recommendations are more widely applicable to enhance the credibility of clinical research publications in general, regardless of the funding source."
|Contact: Nick Hanson|