Suppr超能文献

ACRE 成立大会纪要。

Summary of the ACRE inaugural meeting.

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York 10028, USA.

出版信息

Endocr Pract. 2009 Nov-Dec;15(7):672-81. doi: 10.4158/EP.15.7.672.

Abstract

The charter meeting of the Association of Clinical Researchers and Educators (ACRE) provided a powerful set of arguments against assertions that physician-industry collaboration is harmful and represents a "conflict of interest." Such collaboration has, in fact, improved medical care for patients, a case made overwhelmingly by patients and patient advocacy groups at the meeting. The contentions that physician-industry collaboration is problematic are not based on evidence. They depend on unjustified generalization from inevitable, sometimes egregious, but vanishingly uncommon adverse outcomes of industry-physician interaction without reference to how so much more commonly these interactions add value. Furthermore, the claim that physician-industry collaboration is unprofessional is refuted by rational scrutiny. Indeed, the term "conflict of interest" itself is vague, inviting subjectivity and deserving to be rejected. The unwarranted success of conflict of interest regulation has prevailed because of the failure of physicians, educators, and innovators, through apathy and intimidation, to pay attention to its fallacies and resist its dangers. It has arisen from activist ambitions and from misalignment between the purposes of medical practitioners, educators, and innovators and those of administrators in medical journals and in academic medical centers. The media and politicians have not appreciated these misalignments and have accepted conflict of interest arguments at face value. Regulation emanating from conflict of interest criticism is confusing, onerous, expensive, disrespectful, and damaging. Prohibitions against speaking about medical products inhibit physician and patient education concerning rapidly emerging and complex therapies. Input by physicians cognizant of compliance requirements into such presentations should be encouraged. Restrictions to the free flow of corporate support of academic health centers, professional societies, and patient organizations threaten to delay medical innovation and education.

摘要

临床研究人员和教育工作者协会(ACRE)的宪章会议提供了一系列强有力的论据,反对医生-行业合作有害且代表“利益冲突”的说法。事实上,这种合作改善了患者的医疗服务,这一观点在会议上得到了患者和患者权益团体的强烈支持。认为医生-行业合作有问题的说法没有事实依据。它们依赖于对行业-医生互动不可避免的、有时甚至是恶劣的、但极为罕见的不良后果的不合理概括,而没有提及这些互动如何更常见地增加价值。此外,医生-行业合作不专业的说法也经不住理性的审查。事实上,“利益冲突”一词本身就很模糊,容易引起主观臆断,应该予以拒绝。对利益冲突进行监管的无理成功,是因为医生、教育工作者和创新者由于冷漠和恐吓,未能关注其谬论并抵制其危险。它源于激进主义的野心,以及医学从业者、教育工作者和创新者的目的与医学期刊和学术医疗中心管理人员的目的之间的不匹配。媒体和政治家没有意识到这些不匹配,并且对利益冲突的论点不加质疑地全盘接受。源于利益冲突批评的监管是混乱的、繁重的、昂贵的、不尊重的和有破坏性的。禁止谈论医疗产品会妨碍医生和患者接受有关快速出现和复杂疗法的教育。应该鼓励了解合规要求的医生在这些演讲中提供意见。对企业支持学术医疗中心、专业协会和患者组织的自由流动的限制,可能会延迟医学创新和教育。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验