Vaquera-Alfaro Héctor A, Nasrollahi Elham, Mangala Yashvin Onkarappa, Russler-Germain David, Goodman Aaron, Mohyuddin Ghulam Rehman
Servicio de Hematología, Hospital Universitario "Dr. José Eleuterio González" UANL, Monterrey, Nuevo León, México.
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
BMC Cancer. 2025 Apr 17;25(1):720. doi: 10.1186/s12885-025-14137-5.
Medical writing services, initially developed to streamline manuscript preparation, have raised ethical concerns due to their association with industry influence and spin. While prevalent in oncology and malignant hematology clinical trials, medical writing involvement in review articles remains underexplored, particularly in the hematology literature. Furthermore, conflict of interests of the writers may also affect the content of review articles. This study investigates the prevalence, characteristics, and funding sources of medical writing in malignant hematology review articles and their relationship with the financial conflicts of interest (CoI) among authors.
We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of review articles published in the five-year period between January 2019 and December 2023 in the ten highest-rated hematology journals (by 2023 Journal Citation Report Impact Factor). Inclusion criteria encompassed narrative and systematic reviews, guidelines, and clinical advice articles, excluding studies focused solely on benign hematology or basic science.
Among 663 included reviews, medical writing involvement was disclosed in 5.7% of articles in which in no instance the medical writer was included as a co-author; with as high as 21% of review articles in a single journal having disclosed medical writing assistance. Medical writers were primarily industry-sponsored (89%). Reviews on plasma cell malignancies had the highest medical writing usage (11%). Direct CoIs were identified in 28% and 34% of first and last authors, respectively, rising to 71% in drug-specific reviews. Only one journal had explicit policies regulating medical writing in reviews.
Although the prevalence of medical writing in malignant hematology review articles remains low, at least one journal had over 20% of review articles disclosing medical writer usage. Review articles about specific drugs are often written by authors with direct payments from the manufacturer of the drug in question.
医学写作服务最初是为了简化稿件准备工作而发展起来的,但由于其与行业影响和倾向性有关联,引发了伦理方面的担忧。虽然医学写作在肿瘤学和恶性血液学临床试验中很普遍,但在综述文章中的参与情况仍未得到充分研究,尤其是在血液学文献中。此外,作者的利益冲突也可能影响综述文章的内容。本研究调查了恶性血液学综述文章中医学写作的普遍性、特征、资金来源及其与作者财务利益冲突(CoI)之间的关系。
我们对2019年1月至2023年12月这五年间在十本评分最高的血液学杂志(根据2023年期刊引证报告影响因子)上发表的综述文章进行了横断面分析。纳入标准包括叙述性综述和系统综述、指南以及临床建议文章,不包括仅专注于良性血液学或基础科学的研究。
在663篇纳入的综述中,有5.7%的文章披露了医学写作参与情况,其中医学作者从未被列为共同作者;在一本单一杂志中,高达21%的综述文章披露了医学写作协助。医学作者主要由行业资助(89%)。关于浆细胞恶性肿瘤的综述医学写作使用率最高(11%)。分别在28%和34%的第一作者和最后作者中发现了直接利益冲突,在特定药物综述中这一比例上升至71%。只有一本杂志有关于综述中医学写作的明确政策。
尽管恶性血液学综述文章中医学写作的普遍性仍然较低,但至少有一本杂志超过20%的综述文章披露了医学作者的使用情况。关于特定药物的综述文章通常由从相关药物制造商直接获得报酬的作者撰写。