Limits...
Systematic review on the primary and secondary reporting of the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature.

Stretton S - BMJ Open (2014)

Bottom Line: Secondary estimates were not always reported or cited correctly or appropriately.Evidence for the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature is limited and can be outdated, misleading or mistaken.Researchers should not inflate estimates using non-standard definitions of ghostwriting nor conflate ghostwriting with other unethical authorship practices.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: ProScribe-Envision Pharma Group, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Case study of original versus cited evidence of ghostwriting prevalence. Contrast between original evidence on the prevalence of possible ghostwriting in sertraline publications from 1998 to 2000 and the subsequent citations of this evidence. Source of the original published evidence: Healy and Cattell6 showed that 55 of 96 (57%) articles published on sertraline from 1998 to 2000 were coordinated through a medical communications company and concluded that these data provided information on the ‘possible extent of ghostwriting based on a single drug’. Inaccurate reporting from the cited source is marked with a cross.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4120312&req=5

BMJOPEN2013004777F2: Case study of original versus cited evidence of ghostwriting prevalence. Contrast between original evidence on the prevalence of possible ghostwriting in sertraline publications from 1998 to 2000 and the subsequent citations of this evidence. Source of the original published evidence: Healy and Cattell6 showed that 55 of 96 (57%) articles published on sertraline from 1998 to 2000 were coordinated through a medical communications company and concluded that these data provided information on the ‘possible extent of ghostwriting based on a single drug’. Inaccurate reporting from the cited source is marked with a cross.

Mentions: Healy and Cattell's original evidence has been cited incorrectly and interchangeably with Healy's statement to the House of Commons Health Select Committee investigation (figure 2). Although findings from the primary publication have been cited and interpreted correctly in two secondary publications,3435 many secondary publications incorrectly cited Healy's original evidence and statement to the House of Commons Health Select Committee investigation (figure 2).


Systematic review on the primary and secondary reporting of the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature.

Stretton S - BMJ Open (2014)

Case study of original versus cited evidence of ghostwriting prevalence. Contrast between original evidence on the prevalence of possible ghostwriting in sertraline publications from 1998 to 2000 and the subsequent citations of this evidence. Source of the original published evidence: Healy and Cattell6 showed that 55 of 96 (57%) articles published on sertraline from 1998 to 2000 were coordinated through a medical communications company and concluded that these data provided information on the ‘possible extent of ghostwriting based on a single drug’. Inaccurate reporting from the cited source is marked with a cross.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4120312&req=5

BMJOPEN2013004777F2: Case study of original versus cited evidence of ghostwriting prevalence. Contrast between original evidence on the prevalence of possible ghostwriting in sertraline publications from 1998 to 2000 and the subsequent citations of this evidence. Source of the original published evidence: Healy and Cattell6 showed that 55 of 96 (57%) articles published on sertraline from 1998 to 2000 were coordinated through a medical communications company and concluded that these data provided information on the ‘possible extent of ghostwriting based on a single drug’. Inaccurate reporting from the cited source is marked with a cross.
Mentions: Healy and Cattell's original evidence has been cited incorrectly and interchangeably with Healy's statement to the House of Commons Health Select Committee investigation (figure 2). Although findings from the primary publication have been cited and interpreted correctly in two secondary publications,3435 many secondary publications incorrectly cited Healy's original evidence and statement to the House of Commons Health Select Committee investigation (figure 2).

Bottom Line: Secondary estimates were not always reported or cited correctly or appropriately.Evidence for the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature is limited and can be outdated, misleading or mistaken.Researchers should not inflate estimates using non-standard definitions of ghostwriting nor conflate ghostwriting with other unethical authorship practices.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: ProScribe-Envision Pharma Group, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus