Heimans L, van Hylckama Vlieg A, Dekker F W
Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Neth J Med. 2010 Jan;68(1):46-9.
Claims made in advertisements in medical journals might not always be supported by high-quality evidence, and referenced studies may have been sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry itself. We studied to what extent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) support the claims in advertisements in leading medical journals.
Consecutive unique advertisements were selected from nine different medical journals, and evaluated by 250 medical students using a standardised score form. The quality of RCTs that were referenced in these advertisements was assessed with an instrument based on the Chalmers' score.
158 RCTs from 94 advertisements were used in the study. In total 55% of the RCTs had a high-quality score, 44% intermediate, and <1% had a low-quality score. Almost 40% of the RCTs had a high-quality score and at the same time supported the claim for which they were cited, while only 17% were also not sponsored by a pharmaceutical company.
RCTs used to support claims in medical advertisements are often not a high-quality and independent source of evidence. This distracts from the credibility of claims in advertisements, even in the high-ranked journals.
医学期刊广告中的声明可能并不总是有高质量证据支持,且所引用的研究可能由制药行业自身赞助。我们研究了随机对照试验(RCT)在多大程度上支持主要医学期刊广告中的声明。
从九种不同医学期刊中选取连续的独特广告,并由250名医学生使用标准化评分表进行评估。基于查尔默斯评分的工具对这些广告中引用的RCT质量进行评估。
本研究使用了来自94则广告的158项RCT。总体而言,55%的RCT具有高质量评分,44%为中等质量,<1%为低质量评分。近40%的RCT具有高质量评分且同时支持其被引用的声明,而只有17%也并非由制药公司赞助。
用于支持医学广告声明的RCT往往并非高质量且独立的证据来源。这削弱了广告声明的可信度,即使在高排名期刊中也是如此。