Letters to the Editor
Making Disclosures Count
Psychiatric News
Volume 44 Number 1 page 19-19

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed that the "full disclosure" of potential conflicts of interest of speakers (at CME events) and authors (in journals) is somewhat less than worthless. That prominent researchers have been supported by 10 or more drug companies may indicate their "importance," but this does not indicate whether any of the support they have received has anything to do with their presentation or article.

For disclosure to mean anything, it should be focused on the article or talk at hand; if a paper presents a particular medication in a favorable light, the relevant support that should be disclosed is that from the company that makes that medication. Though many speakers/authors might object, they should disclose the total amount of funding for any reason from that company in the prior one to two years.

Perhaps also helpful would be a required statement from speakers/authors indicating whether the support from the drug company has in any way influenced what they are presenting or writing. If a speaker/author is found to state one thing when being funded by one company, and something different when funded by another company, that person should be barred from speaking at CME events for a long time.

Interactive Graphics


Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Related Articles