Drummond Rennie - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Uploads

Papers by Drummond Rennie

Research paper thumbnail of Evidence based medicine--an oral history

BMJ (Clinical research ed.), Jan 21, 2014

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of The Publication of Sponsored Symposiums in Medical Journals

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 Symposiums sponsored by drug companies often have promotional attributes and are not peer-reviewed.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.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Congress on Biomedical Peer Review

JAMA, 1998

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Prevalence of Articles With Honorary Authors and Ghost Authors in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals

JAMA, 1998

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Evidence-Based Medicine—An Oral History

JAMA, 2014

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Influences on the Quality of Published Drug Studies

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.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of The Criticism Management System for the Cochrane Library

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.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study

BMJ, 2007

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Eighth international congress on peer review in biomedical publication

BMJ, 2015

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Fifth international congress on peer review and biomedical publication

BMJ, 2003

ABSTRACT

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Das Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE-) Statement

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.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Evidence based medicine--an oral history

BMJ (Clinical research ed.), Jan 21, 2014

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of The Publication of Sponsored Symposiums in Medical Journals

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.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Congress on Biomedical Peer Review

JAMA, 1998

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Prevalence of Articles With Honorary Authors and Ghost Authors in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals

JAMA, 1998

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Evidence-Based Medicine—An Oral History

JAMA, 2014

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Influences on the Quality of Published Drug Studies

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.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of The Criticism Management System for the Cochrane Library

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.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study

BMJ, 2007

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Eighth international congress on peer review in biomedical publication

BMJ, 2015

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Fifth international congress on peer review and biomedical publication

BMJ, 2003

ABSTRACT

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact

Research paper thumbnail of Das Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE-) Statement

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.

Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact