Pharmacy and Wellness Review Volume 2 Issue 1 Article 1 March 2011 The Haunting of Medical Literature Brieann Miller Ohio Northern University Tana Peterman Ohio Northern University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.onu.edu/paw_review Part of the Other Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences Commons This Editorial is brought to you for free and open access by the ONU Journals and Publications at DigitalCommons@ONU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pharmacy and Wellness Review by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@ONU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TH» PllARMACY A.No WELLNESS REv1E~' Editorial The Haunting of Medical Literature Bneann Miller, hfth-year i:tiarmacy student from Fairfield, Ohio, Tana Peterman, fifth-year pharmacy student from Jacksonville, N.C. able contributions to a paper from authorship is one of the Abstract most significant aspects of ghostwntmg. More importantly, with Ghostwriting, or using the names of academic resea rchers to the title of author comes a responsibility to ensure that the validate studies commissioned by pharmaceutical companies, has paper's content, intent and findings are based on the results of become a growing concern within medical literature. Omission from the study and scientific principle and not skewed by financial authorship of the names of individuals making considerable conllibu­ or political gain.5 Authors lis t disclosure statements to inform tions to a paper is one of the most significant aspects of ghostwrit­ the reader of existing co nflicts of interest; however, the term ing. Policy prohibiting medical ghostwriting is lacking, and it is nearly "conftlct of interest' 1s difficult to define. These conflicts typically impossible to prevent the practice without strict and thorough guide­ include employment, grants and other financial support, bur the lines. More strict guidelines banning ghostwriting, denying govern­ lines become blurred when referring to patent nghts. per- ment funds to organ12at1ons without such policies, and development sonal relationships or political ties. When the true authors are of databases to track offending authors and organizations could excluded from publications, rhey cannot be held responsible tor decrease the impact of ghostwnting in medical literature. the integrity of their work. Polley proh1b1ting medical ghostwntmg 1s lacking. In an evalu­ Background ation of 50 of the top academic medical centers m the United Clinical evidence has come to be revered as the standard of truth in States, 52 percent had no published policy regarding author­ medical practX:e. Pharmacists turn to clinical literature to make sound ship or ghostwritmg.1 Without a policy in pace, It IS nearly recommendations for patient drug therapy. It 1s often ass urned that impossible to stop this type of unethical misconduct While the the integrity and validity of a published paper is ensured by referring to responsibility of honesty and disclosure lies with the author, literature in esteemed, peer-reviewed journals. However, ethical con­ there are few tools available for editors to police authorship va­ siderations and conflicts of int'lrest in authorship are slipping through lidity 5 A mere 8.8 percent of pumals have a policy for verifying quality assurance systems employed by these pumals and threatening author claims and conflicts of interest. 6 the foundation of medicine. Ghostwriting, or using the names of aca­ demrc researchers to validate studies comm1ss1oned by pharmaceuncal A case of Ghostwriting 1 companies, has become a growing concern within medical lrterarure. An example of ghostwriting that is thought to significantly Also concerning may be the use of publication planning, a form of impact the medical literature wa s when a oharmaceutJcal systematically populating mec1cal literature on the corporate scale. manufacturer attempted to prove that their drug could be used Publication planning 1s conducted by a team of people employed by a as an antidepressant in adolescents.7 This study's results were pharmaceutical manufacturer in an attempt to control every possible published 1n the Journal of the American Academy of Child aspect of public information available about a drug of interest.2 and Adolescent Psychiatry and listed 22 authors. The idea for PublicatJon plans include strategies for conducting explicit trials that the study came from the primary author and was accepted and yield desired results combined with the carefully timed release of conducted by the pharmaceutical manufacturer However, the information to specific target audiences. In some cases, the planning result of this study and similar studies showed no efficacy for team may be more responsible for manuscripts submitted to medical the drug in adolescents compared to placebo. The manufactur­ pumals than the respected author(s) appearing on the page. er worried that the lack of efficacy in pediatrics would possibly make the medical community question the efficacy of the drug Contributing Factors in general. Therefore, the manufacturer decided only to publish The first factor conrributing to medical ghostwriting is the definition of the positive findings from the study. A medical publishing com­ authorship. The correct protocol for listing authors 1s complicated by pany was hired to draft the positive information and prepare it histoncal methods of listing authors alphabetically or l1Sting the head for publicat10n. of department as lead author as a sign of respect.3 Currently, the International Committee Medical Journal Editors defines author­ ot A synopsis of the clinica l report was provided to the ghostwnter ship as fulfilling allot the following criteria for authorship suootantial 1n the medical publlshing group who used this shortened report contnbutJon to conception anc design , acquisition of data, or analys1S to wnte the first draft of the manuscnpt. The ghostwnter also and 1merpretat10n of data, drafting the article and/or revising 1t cntically was found to have contributed to the article by developing and for important intellectual content, and final approval of the versio n to implementing a publication plan, responding to peer-reviews, be published.• Om1Ssion of the names of ind1v1duals making consider- and providing the primary author with drafts and cover letters. 1 THE P HARMACY AND W EL LNESS Re view Volume two. Issue one March 2011 The Haunting of Medical Literature Editorial Research looking into the communicatio n be tween the listed authors and Discussion employees at the medical publishing compa ny showed that many of the Ghostwriting will not be stopped until all levels of medical publishing 22 listed authors had little to no involvement with the article. The ghost­ commit to higher sta ndards for literary ethics. PractitJoners have a right wnter was actually the pnmary writer of the article drafts, even though to be informed of these conflicts of interest in literature so they can not listed as such. Also, 1t was shown that the second and third authors make their own decisions about the clinical validity of the evidence they made only minor edits to the articlg throughout the process. Many of the are reading . Ghostwriting and publication planmng allow publication of authors were shown to have only made small edits to one of the drans. biased or incomplete 1ntormat1on that may be harmful to patients who having only assisted in running the study, or having made no recogniz­ begin therapy with a medication with side effects and risks that are not able contribution at all.7 fully disclosed. Many pa tients now may be suffering from severe adverse effects of med ications because the dangers we re not known and the A ma pr issue with the first draft was that there were noticeable dif­ treatment was marketed as be ing safe and effective. Ghostwriting is an ferences between it and the final clinical report, even though this was emerging problem in medical writing that not only has ethical implica­ the source used to write the first draft. In the clinical report it is stated tions, but also affects patients and their wellbeing. The quality of medical that only two primary outcomes were measured. In the first draft, eight care provided to patients is only as strong as the integrity of the literature primary outcomes were mentio ned: four of these outcomes showed that backs it. increased efficacy of the drug over placebo, wh ich contradicts the findings of the srudy. Also, the line between the primary and secondary Citations outcomes was blurred. After peer review, the article was edited again to 1. Lacasse JR, Leo J. Ghos twnting at elite academic medical centers include only the original two pnmary outcomes , but the information was in the united states. PLoS 20 10; 7(2). 1-4. presented in such a way that one of the outcomes appeared to be pos1- 2. Sismondo S. Ghosts in the machine. publication planning in the t1 ve and reinforced the Idea of efficacy for the drug. The side effects of medical sciences. Soc Stud Sci 2009, 39(2) 171-198. the medication were inconsistent with the original report as well, and the 3. Melnick A. Cha nge and medical writing. AMWA 2009. 24(3): 139. seriousness of some listed side effects was not expressed. 7 4. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Ethical Consid­ eratrons in the Conduct and Reporti ng of Research: Authorship and The results of this study being published include many clinicians Contributorship. Available atwww.ic m~. org/ethical_1author.h tml. believing the drug to be an effective and highly tolerable medication Accessed Nov. 23 , 20 10. for adolescents. In 207 articles published since 2008, this study was 5. Roberts J. An author's guide to publication ethics: a review of mentioned and used as evidence that the drug is effective fo r use in emerging standards in biomedical j:Jumals. Headache 2009; 49: adolescents. Only 31 of these articles correctly presented the informa­ 578-589.