Big Pharma 2, angry doc 1

Readers who visit Dr Crippen's blog will realise that angry doc is a fan and an occasional 'commenter' (what do you call someone who comments on a blog entry?).

Here's an article on the subject of objectivity of medical journals (by a former editor of the BMJ) recommended by a fellow reader/'commenter' there.


Excerpt:

"... the editors are likely to favour randomised trials. Many journals publish few such trials and would like to publish more: they are, as I've said, a superior form of evidence. The trials are also likely to be clinically interesting. Other reasons for publishing are less worthy. Publishers know that pharmaceutical companies will often purchase thousands of dollars' worth of reprints, and the profit margin on reprints is likely to be 70%. Editors, too, know that publishing such studies is highly profitable, and editors are increasingly responsible for the budgets of their journals and for producing a profit for the owners. Many owners—including academic societies—depend on profits from their journals. An editor may thus face a frighteningly stark conflict of interest: publish a trial that will bring US$100 000 of profit or meet the end-of-year budget by firing an editor."


Maybe angry doc should stop asking drug reps for free copies of trial reprints too?

I swear, the more I learn about the healthcare business, the harder it is for me to sleep at night...