Do Pharma ads affect journal publication re: supps | Arthritis Information

Share
 

It appears it does
 
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/8/11
 

Results

Journals' total pages per issue ranged from 56 to 217 while advertising pages ranged from 4 to 88; pharmaceutical advertisements (pharmads) accounted for 1.5% to 76% of ad pages. Journals with the most pharmads published significantly fewer major articles about DS per issue than journals with the fewest pharmads (P < 0.01). Journals with the most pharmads published no clinical trials or cohort studies about DS. The percentage of major articles concluding that DS were unsafe was 4% in journals with fewest and 67% among those with the most pharmads (P = 0.02). The percentage of articles concluding that DS were ineffective was 50% higher among journals with more than among those with fewer pharmads (P = 0.4).

Conclusion

These data are consistent with the hypothesis that increased pharmaceutical advertising is associated with publishing fewer articles about DS and publishing more articles with conclusions that DS are unsafe. Additional research is needed to test alternative hypotheses for these findings in a larger sample of more diverse journals.

 
Limitations
 

This pilot study has several limitations. It included only a few of the many clinical medical journals available and used only the American library version of these journals, but it did focus on those with very high readership that are often quoted by professional organizations, the media and policymakers. Results from the smaller secondary analysis of the CAM journals would be enhanced by larger sample of more diverse CAM publications. The review did not specifically address the funding for different trials or evaluate the methodologic quality of the published trials. This study was not a survey of journal editors regarding the number of submissions of different types they receive or how they decide which articles to include. An alternative hypothesis that might explain these findings is that journals with a high number of pharmaceutical ads receive few submissions about dietary supplements; furthermore, it is possible that a large number of articles about dietary supplements are of poor quality and do not deserve publication. It is also possible that the observed associations are due to another underlying factor ; for example, one recent study reported that in high impact journals, European journals were approximately twice as likely as American journals to publish positive articles about complementary therapies [42]. In addition, this study used the number of issues per journal as the study denominator rather than the total number of articles per issue; future studies could use the number of articles per issue as the denominator to address the related question of whether journals with more advertising per issue also have fewer articles of all types and hence fewer articles about dietary supplements. Future studies on this topic to explore alternative hypotheses for our findings should include a larger number of journals and more diverse journals; additional studies might also survey journal editors to determine the number of articles submitted for consideration for publication and ask about the percentage of submissions related to dietary supplements.

Conclusion

These findings support the hypothesis that in major medical journals, more pharmaceutical advertising is associated with publishing fewer articles about DS and having more negative conclusions about DS safety. While awaiting future definitive studies to confirm these findings in a larger, more diverse sample of journals and to explore alternative explanations, these data support current efforts to reduce conflicts of interest in medical publishing and to make any such conflicts more transparent. The impact of advertising on publications appears to be non-trivial; the ultimate impact of this bias on professional guidelines, health care, and health policy is a matter of great public concern and underscores the need for additional health services research on this topic.

For those wondering like me, DS=dietary supplements.  Interesting article.to validate this review the researchers would have to know how many articles, letters etc involving DS positive or negative were submitted to these journals.   To me it is far more signifigent what was rejected as opposed to what was accepted.  Are these journals not choosing to present positive information about DS or are they not receiving any.  Same thing with advertising dollars.  Are these journals rejecting ads for DS while accepting those for pharmaceutical drugs.  Or are DS manufacturers simply taking their ad dollars to a friendlier audiance.  DS get far more bang for their bucks in direct to consumer advertising than they do with advertising to a select section of the medical communityGreat point about the advertising dollars - that's something I'd like to know too. 
 
How many DTC ads for DS do you see on TV?  Compared to traditional meds?  How about magazines?  I know that 'television sponsors' have tremendous pull with networks.  Same with magazines.  They get previews of the upcoming mags and 'have concerns' about some of the 'content' and then the content gets pulled.
 
Pip
If I had a supplement to sell, I would put all of my effort into getting Oprah to take it. Magazines especially specialty magazines are loaded with ads for DS and many DS pay for informericals so you see them all over cable TV as well..and lets not forget about the internet..look at all those websites for DS.   And of course as Suzanne said..the Oprah effect
 
 
We on AI should run an expereiment.  We should figure out what the ratios are on shows; especially woman's shows  Because right now, I can't think of a supp on mainstream TV.  I'm not talking 'infomercials'. 
 
The point in this article is that the studies have been done and they're not getting published in prestigious journals - possibly because of Pharma.  Which, as we know, could influence our MDs to use them with us.  As an example, I mention probiotics.  There were thousands of studies on them in PubMed saying they do everything from cut inflammation to fight off MRSA.  But our rheumies say 'doesn't work'?  Might it be because they were published in Europe?  And not in JAMA?
 
Pip

any vitamin commercial is a commercial for a supplement.  One-A-Day, Centrum etc.  And informercials should count since that is a direct to consumer form of advertising. 

And Pip that study simply counted  existing articles in journals it could in no way unless they had access to the editorial board have any idea what was not published.  There is no way can draw a conclusion on exclusion as they as had no data to back it up.  Show me a study indicating what (all) studies were not published in these journals over the same time period and we might be able to draw a conclusion
[QUOTE=buckeye]Magazines especially specialty magazines are loaded with ads for DS and many DS pay for informericals so you see them all over cable TV as well..and lets not forget about the internet..look at all those websites for DS.   And of course as Suzanne said..the Oprah effect
Copyright ArthritisInsight.com