Comments on: My take: Ghost-writing, physician access http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/04/my-take-ghost-writing-physician-access.html Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:27:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/04/my-take-ghost-writing-physician-access.html#comment-85073 Anonymous Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:32:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2008/04/my-take-ghost-writing-physician-access.html#comment-85073 "Ghost-writing" of scientific articals is the norm -- it is not at all unusual. Do you think the "key-opinion-leader" who has > 300 publications on his (her) cv actually analyzed all the data, understood the statistical analasis and wrote the articles? Do you think the esteemed Professor with 17 books to his name at the famous University actually did the research, the analysis and wrote the books? The Merck thing is all media hype. I work in the pharmaceutical industry and have written several (many?) articles for our investigators which they then reviewed. They were given any data that they requested (few do). All were asked to comment extensively (we really wanted their opinions) and in a few cases, they did and we revised the text accordingly. (My name was on the papers also, rarely first or last-- but I admit, some medical writers do not get authorship). However, what Merck did was not unusual and I don't think all the big-shots who are the "Principal Investigators" would have it any other way! “Ghost-writing” of scientific articals is the norm — it is not at all unusual. Do you think the “key-opinion-leader” who has > 300 publications on his (her) cv actually analyzed all the data, understood the statistical analasis and wrote the articles? Do you think the esteemed Professor with 17 books to his name at the famous University actually did the research, the analysis and wrote the books? The Merck thing is all media hype. I work in the pharmaceutical industry and have written several (many?) articles for our investigators which they then reviewed. They were given any data that they requested (few do). All were asked to comment extensively (we really wanted their opinions) and in a few cases, they did and we revised the text accordingly. (My name was on the papers also, rarely first or last– but I admit, some medical writers do not get authorship). However, what Merck did was not unusual and I don’t think all the big-shots who are the “Principal Investigators” would have it any other way!

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/04/my-take-ghost-writing-physician-access.html#comment-85050 Anonymous Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:11:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2008/04/my-take-ghost-writing-physician-access.html#comment-85050 Yet another embarrassing scandal for medicine and the pharmaceutical industry. It is my belief that the cozy relationship between drug makers and: a) practicing physicians through "detailing,", and b) involvement in research sponsorship (and article writing!) is fundamentally flawed. I recall a Scientific American article by Robert Chialdini, expert on persuasion, on the effectiveness of drug rep visits, even when the doctors deny it. Another author described the pharmaceutical industry as sending out "armies of leggy blonds" to persuade doctors to use their drugs. <br/><br/>Why are there no university ethics investigations against the "non-authors" uncovered in the JAMA article? This is academic fraud. <br/>These people are university professors. If a scientist had done something like this, their career would be over. Yet another embarrassing scandal for medicine and the pharmaceutical industry. It is my belief that the cozy relationship between drug makers and: a) practicing physicians through “detailing,”, and b) involvement in research sponsorship (and article writing!) is fundamentally flawed. I recall a Scientific American article by Robert Chialdini, expert on persuasion, on the effectiveness of drug rep visits, even when the doctors deny it. Another author described the pharmaceutical industry as sending out “armies of leggy blonds” to persuade doctors to use their drugs.

Why are there no university ethics investigations against the “non-authors” uncovered in the JAMA article? This is academic fraud.
These people are university professors. If a scientist had done something like this, their career would be over.

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/04/my-take-ghost-writing-physician-access.html#comment-85044 Anonymous Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:27:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2008/04/my-take-ghost-writing-physician-access.html#comment-85044 You don't know whether to be outraged or wonder why we don't do this in the USA.<br/><br/>http://tinyurl.com/6fgqyw<br/><br/>Links to a UK Daily Mail article.<br/><br/>English hospitals, and some medical practices for that matter, put their appointment lines on their equivalent of 900-number service.<br/><br/>So this guy calls to set up an appointment, gets put on hold, and is billed £127 for waiting. You don’t know whether to be outraged or wonder why we don’t do this in the USA.

http://tinyurl.com/6fgqyw

Links to a UK Daily Mail article.

English hospitals, and some medical practices for that matter, put their appointment lines on their equivalent of 900-number service.

So this guy calls to set up an appointment, gets put on hold, and is billed £127 for waiting.

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/04/my-take-ghost-writing-physician-access.html#comment-85043 Anonymous Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:42:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2008/04/my-take-ghost-writing-physician-access.html#comment-85043 You can have the best bedside manner and the available appointments, but if you don't have convenient parking, it's all for nought. You can have the best bedside manner and the available appointments, but if you don’t have convenient parking, it’s all for nought.

]]> By: Doc99http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/04/my-take-ghost-writing-physician-access.html#comment-85042 Doc99 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:34:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2008/04/my-take-ghost-writing-physician-access.html#comment-85042 Sizzler is far more available than Smith and Wollensky's Steakhouse (in NYC.) I'll leave it to you as to which provides the better product. Sizzler is far more available than Smith and Wollensky’s Steakhouse (in NYC.) I’ll leave it to you as to which provides the better product.

]]> By: Ian Furst http://www.waittimes.blogspot.comhttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/04/my-take-ghost-writing-physician-access.html#comment-85040 Ian Furst http://www.waittimes.blogspot.com Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:34:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2008/04/my-take-ghost-writing-physician-access.html#comment-85040 Re #1 I completely disagree with you Kevin. As an editorial consultant myself, I can say that all manuscripts are sent for review without the cover page so that I don't alter my opinion based on the reputation of the author. While you're idea may prevent ghost writing it is more likely to allow ‘crap’ to be published because someone well known is on the list. I also agree with doc99, that the literature is filled with senior authors that have little or no contribution other than a final check for punctuation. To change this practice by punishing the Journal is ridiculous. At some point the authors have to live and die by their own ethical and moral standards. Re #2 it's true the two biggest determinants of referral pattern are proximity and availability. I don't think it's a bad thing though because most specialists are expert at >90% of the work that comes through the door. Even if a referring doctor doesn't think the specialist is the best, I know that the GP will still think they’re more than capable of the job at hand. Re #1 I completely disagree with you Kevin. As an editorial consultant myself, I can say that all manuscripts are sent for review without the cover page so that I don’t alter my opinion based on the reputation of the author. While you’re idea may prevent ghost writing it is more likely to allow ‘crap’ to be published because someone well known is on the list. I also agree with doc99, that the literature is filled with senior authors that have little or no contribution other than a final check for punctuation. To change this practice by punishing the Journal is ridiculous. At some point the authors have to live and die by their own ethical and moral standards. Re #2 it’s true the two biggest determinants of referral pattern are proximity and availability. I don’t think it’s a bad thing though because most specialists are expert at >90% of the work that comes through the door. Even if a referring doctor doesn’t think the specialist is the best, I know that the GP will still think they’re more than capable of the job at hand.

]]> By: Doc99http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/04/my-take-ghost-writing-physician-access.html#comment-85039 Doc99 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:50:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2008/04/my-take-ghost-writing-physician-access.html#comment-85039 When someone suggested a restaurant to Yogi Berra, he replied:"Nobody goes there anymore - it's too crowded." When someone suggested a restaurant to Yogi Berra, he replied:”Nobody goes there anymore – it’s too crowded.”

]]> By: Doc99http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/04/my-take-ghost-writing-physician-access.html#comment-85038 Doc99 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:47:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2008/04/my-take-ghost-writing-physician-access.html#comment-85038 What about <i>Ghost Authoring</i>? How many authors listed actually contributed substantively on a medical paper? Many a Department Chariman has padded his cv with credits to papers he had no hand in composing.<br/><br/>As far as funding, I agree that commercial sponsorship often introduces an unacceptable bias. But without the pharmaceutical industry, where would the funding for many studies originate? It's a puzzlement. What about Ghost Authoring? How many authors listed actually contributed substantively on a medical paper? Many a Department Chariman has padded his cv with credits to papers he had no hand in composing.

As far as funding, I agree that commercial sponsorship often introduces an unacceptable bias. But without the pharmaceutical industry, where would the funding for many studies originate? It’s a puzzlement.

]]>