Suppr超能文献

医学期刊广告中的声明是否有随机对照试验的支持?

Are claims of advertisements in medical journals supported by RCTs?

作者信息

Heimans L, van Hylckama Vlieg A, Dekker F W

机构信息

Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.

出版信息

Neth J Med. 2010 Jan;68(1):46-9.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSION

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.

摘要

背景

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。

方法

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。

结果

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。

结论

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。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验