Papers by Drummond Rennie
BMJ (Clinical research ed.), Jan 21, 2014
New England Journal of Medicine, 1992
An increasing proportion of spending by the pharmaceutical industry has gone to funding symposium... more An increasing proportion of spending by the pharmaceutical industry has gone to funding symposiums that are published by peer-reviewed medical journals. This study tests the hypothesis that such sponsorship, particularly by a single pharmaceutical company, is associated with a promotional orientation of the symposium and a distortion of the peer-review process. We counted the symposiums published in 58 journals of clinical medicine and surveyed the journal editors regarding their policies for symposium issues. We analyzed the symposium issues that appeared in the 11 journals that published the most symposiums in order to determine the sponsor or sponsors, the topics, whether the titles were misleading, whether brand names were used, and whether the featured drugs were classified by the Food and Drug Administration as innovative or approved. The number of symposiums published per year increased steadily from 1966 through 1989. Forty-two percent of those analyzed (262 of 625) had a single pharmaceutical company as the sponsor. These symposiums were more likely than those with other sponsors to have misleading titles (P less than 0.001) and to use brand names (P less than 0.001), and less likely to be peer-reviewed in the same manner as other articles in the parent journal (P less than 0.001). Of the 161 symposiums that focused on a single drug, 51 percent concerned unapproved therapies; 14 percent concerned drugs classified as bringing important therapeutic gains. Symposiums sponsored by drug companies often have promotional attributes and are not peer-reviewed. Financial relations among symposium participants, sponsors, and journals should be completely disclosed, symposiums should be clearly identified, and journal editors should maintain editorial control over contributions from symposiums.
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1996
To practice evidence-based medicine, physicians need data on the clinical effectiveness, toxicity... more To practice evidence-based medicine, physicians need data on the clinical effectiveness, toxicity, convenience, and cost of new drugs compared with available alternatives. We give examples of published drug studies that are defective, sometimes because pharmaceutical industry funding has affected their content and quality. We make recommendations on how to avoid these defects.
Evaluation & the Health Professions, 2002
In April 1997, the Cochrane Collaboration implemented the Criticism Management System for The Coc... more In April 1997, the Cochrane Collaboration implemented the Criticism Management System for The Cochrane Library, allowing readers to electronically submit criticisms on Cochrane reviews and protocols. As a result of resource constraints and user feedback, the Criticism Management System evolved through three different versions. Major problems have included difficult access to the system, a lack of automation within the system, a low number of submissions (171 criticisms submitted per 1,388 reviews), and a low response rate to these criticisms by authors of reviews (26 criticisms have received published responses). These low figures suggest that users of The Cochrane Library are not commenting on the published reviews or not using the Criticism Management System to make their criticisms known to the authors. An easier-to-use system and better ways of encouraging feedback from readers and responses from reviewers are needed in the future.
BMJ, 2007
Objective To determine whether financial ties to one drug company are associated with favourable ... more Objective To determine whether financial ties to one drug company are associated with favourable results or conclusions in meta-analyses on antihypertensive drugs. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Meta-analyses published up to December 2004 that were not duplicates and evaluated the effects of antihypertensive drugs compared with any comparator on clinical end points in adults. Financial ties were categorised as one drug company compared with all others. Main outcome measures The main outcomes were the results and conclusions of meta-analyses, with both outcomes separately categorised as being favourable or not favourable towards the study drug. We also collected data on characteristics of meta-analyses that the literature suggested might be associated with favourable results or conclusions. Results 124 meta-analyses were included in the study, 49 (40%) of which had financial ties to one drug company. On univariate logistic regression analyses, meta-analyses of better methodological quality were more likely to have favourable results (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.27). Although financial ties to one drug company were not associated with favourable results, such ties constituted the only characteristic significantly associated with favourable conclusions (4.09, 1.30 to 12.83). When controlling for other characteristics of meta-analyses in multiple logistic regression analyses, meta-analyses that had financial ties to one drug company remained more likely to report favourable conclusions (5.11, 1.54 to 16.92). Conclusion Meta-analyses on antihypertensive drugs and with financial ties to one drug company are not associated with favourable results but are associated with favourable conclusions.
Der Internist, 2008
Much of biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate,... more Much of biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
Uploads
Papers by Drummond Rennie