BMC Public Health. 2010 May 29;10:294. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-294.
Journal advertising is used by pharmaceutical companies to disseminate medicine information to doctors. The quality of claims, references and the presentation of risk results in Australia and the US has been questioned in several studies. No recent evidence is available on the quality of claims, references and the presentation of risk results in journal advertising in Australia and the US and no Malaysian data have been published. The aim of this study was to compare the quality of claims, references and the presentation of risk results in journal advertising in these three countries.
A consecutive sample of 85 unique advertisements from each country was selected from journal advertising published between January 2004 to December 2006. Claims, references and the presentation of risk results in medical journal advertising were compared between the three countries.
Less than one-third of the claims were unambiguous claims (Australia, 30%, Malaysia 17%, US, 23%). In Malaysia significantly less unambiguous claims were provided than in Australia and the US (P < 0.001). However, the unambiguous claims were supported by more references than other claims (80%). Most evidence was obtained from at least one randomized controlled trial, a systematic review or meta-analysis (Australia, 84%, Malaysia, 81%, US, 76%) with journal articles being the most commonly cited references in all countries. Data on file were significantly more likely to be cited in the US (17%) than in Australia (2%) and Malaysia (4%) (P < 0.001). Advertisements that provided quantitative information reported risk results exclusively as a relative risk reduction.
The majority of claims were vague suggesting poor quality of claims in journal advertising in these three countries. Evidence from a randomized controlled trial, systematic review or meta- analysis was commonly cited to support claims. However, the more frequent use of data that have not been published and independently reviewed in the US compared to Australia and Malaysia raises questions on the quality of references in the US. The use of relative rather than absolute benefits may overemphasize the benefit of medicines which may leave doctors susceptible to misinterpreting information.
制药公司利用期刊广告向医生传播药品信息。在几项研究中，澳大利亚和美国对广告中声称、参考文献和风险结果的呈现质量提出了质疑。目前尚无关于澳大利亚、美国和马来西亚期刊广告中声称、参考文献和风险结果呈现质量的最新证据，也没有发表过马来西亚的数据。本研究旨在比较这三个国家期刊广告中声称、参考文献和风险结果呈现质量。
从 2004 年 1 月至 2006 年 12 月期间出版的医学期刊广告中，连续选择每个国家的 85 个独特广告样本。比较三个国家的医学期刊广告中的声称、参考文献和风险结果呈现。
不到三分之一的声称是明确的声称（澳大利亚，30%；马来西亚，17%；美国，23%）。在马来西亚，提供的明确声称明显少于澳大利亚和美国（P < 0.001）。然而，明确的声称比其他声称更有更多的参考文献支持（80%）。大多数证据至少来自一项随机对照试验、系统评价或荟萃分析（澳大利亚，84%；马来西亚，81%；美国，76%），期刊文章是所有国家最常引用的参考文献。与澳大利亚（2%）和马来西亚（4%）相比，美国（17%）更有可能引用存档数据（P < 0.001）。提供定量信息的广告仅将风险结果报告为相对风险降低。
这三个国家的期刊广告中的大多数声称都很模糊，表明声称的质量较差。广告中通常引用来自随机对照试验、系统评价或荟萃分析的证据来支持声称。然而，与澳大利亚和马来西亚相比，美国更频繁地使用未经发表和独立审查的数据，这引发了对美国参考文献质量的质疑。使用相对而不是绝对益处可能会夸大药品的益处，这可能使医生容易误解信息。
