Competing interests and controversy about third generation oral contraceptives. BMJ readers should know whose words they read.
作者信息
Vandenbroucke J P, Helmerhorst F M, Rosendaal F R
出版信息
BMJ. 2000 Feb 5;320(7231):381-2.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
2
Competing interests and controversy about third generation oral contraceptives. Science is not a dispassionate activity.
BMJ. 2000 Feb 5;320(7231):382.
3
Journal "should have revealed scientist's connection to company".期刊“本应披露科学家与公司的关联”。
BMJ. 2002 Jan 12;324(7329):70. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7329.70.
4
Incomplete compensation following the ban on third generation oral contraceptives.第三代口服避孕药禁令后的不完全补偿。
Hum Reprod. 1998 May;13(5):1118. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a019701.
5
How honest can a medical journal be?医学期刊能有多诚实？
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006 Feb;46(1):2-3. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2006.00505.x.
6
Declaring financial competing interests: survey of five general medical journals.声明财务利益冲突：对五家综合医学期刊的调查
BMJ. 2001 Aug 4;323(7307):263-4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7307.263.
7
Claim launched against makers of third generation pill.针对第三代避孕药制造商发起诉讼。
BMJ. 2002 Mar 9;324(7337):561. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7337.561.
8
9
The third generation oral contraceptive controversy. The evidence shows they are less safe than second generation pills.第三代口服避孕药之争。证据表明，它们不如第二代避孕药安全。
BMJ. 1999 Sep 25;319(7213):795-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7213.795.
10
Does declaration of competing interests affect readers' perceptions? A randomised trial.利益冲突声明会影响读者的看法吗？一项随机试验。
BMJ. 2002 Dec 14;325(7377):1391-2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7377.1391.
引用本文的文献
1
A pathway to improved prospective observational post-authorization safety studies.改善前瞻性观察性上市后安全性研究的途径。
Drug Saf. 2012 Sep 1;35(9):711-24. doi: 10.1007/BF03261968.
2
Making sense of non-financial competing interests.理解非财务利益冲突
PLoS Med. 2008 Sep 30;5(9):e199. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050199.
3
Is there evidence for biased reporting of published adverse effects data in pharmaceutical industry-funded studies?在制药行业资助的研究中，是否存在已发表的不良反应数据报告存在偏差的证据？
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2008 Dec;66(6):767-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2008.03272.x. Epub 2008 Jul 31.
4
Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review.制药行业赞助与研究结果及质量：系统评价
BMJ. 2003 May 31;326(7400):1167-70. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167.
5
Making progress with competing interests.在利益冲突中取得进展。
BMJ. 2002 Dec 14;325(7377):1375-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7377.1375.
6
Third generation oral contraceptives.第三代口服避孕药。
BMJ. 2000 Jul 22;321(7255):190-1. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7255.190.
本文引用的文献
1
Interpreting competing interests.解读利益冲突
BMJ. 1999 Sep 25;319(7213):A.
2
The third generation oral contraceptive controversy. The evidence shows they are less safe than second generation pills.第三代口服避孕药之争。证据表明，它们不如第二代避孕药安全。
BMJ. 1999 Sep 25;319(7213):795-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7213.795.
3
Commentary. Oral contraceptives and myocardial infarction: reassuring new findings.评论：口服避孕药与心肌梗死：令人安心的新发现
BMJ. 1999 Jun 12;318(7198):1583-4.
4
The differential risk of oral contraceptives: the impact of full exposure history.口服避孕药的差异风险：完整暴露史的影响。
Hum Reprod. 1999 Jun;14(6):1493-9. doi: 10.1093/humrep/14.6.1493.
5
175th anniversary lecture. Medical journals and the shaping of medical knowledge.
Lancet. 1998;352(9145):2001-6. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(98)10208-8.
6
Newer oral contraceptives and the risk of venous thromboembolism.新型口服避孕药与静脉血栓栓塞风险
Contraception. 1998 Mar;57(3):169-81. doi: 10.1016/s0010-7824(98)00014-6.
Zotero 插件