Medical publication ghostwriting report gets mixed review

Medical publishing was the latest industry to be put under the microscope in the push for greater transparency in many fields when the office of United States Senator Charles Grassley released a new report on medical ghostwriting on June 24, but at least one medical publishing association is questioning some of its contents.

The staff report of the Committee on Finance on the practice of medical ghost writing followed a 2-year review of the role that pharmaceutical and medical device companies play in developing articles for publication in medical journals. According to a press release from the senator’s office, Grassley has urged the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to incorporate the report’s findings in its new, final disclosure guidelines for federal grant recipients.

“The NIH, academic institutions, and medical journals play an important role in ensuring adequate and meaningful disclosure. Public dollars and public trust are at stake in research and the practice of medicine,” Grassley stated in the release. “The expert opinion and recommendations presented in medical journals influence decisions made by doctors and their patients and the coverage determinations made by government health programs.”

Comments on report

Responding to the 31-page report in a press release, the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP), in Briarcliff Manor, N.Y., expressed satisfaction with how the document dealt with uniform disclosure of financial and editorial support and more specificity in acknowledging editorial assistance. However, it also questioned some information in Grassley’s report.

Cited in the release as one weakness was the heading in the “Findings” section of the report that read, “the role of pharmaceutical companies in medical publications remains veiled or undisclosed.” ISMPP officials noted the references used as evidence for that statement mentioned some events that predate the global ethical standards that guide the development of medical publications today.

“The International Society for Medical Publication Professionals believes full disclosure and acknowledgement of all contributions to medical publications are essential elements of ethical publication practices that ultimately protect the health and safety of patients, and maintain the integrity of our profession,” ISMPP president Julia Ralston stated.

Codes in place

Another weakness of Grassley’s report the ISMPP identified in the release was the absence of so-called “cornerstone guidances” and codes of practice now in place, which were published and adopted since 2003. Many of those standards have been included in published statements and articles that are widely accepted in the medical publishing field, the ISMPP release stated.

ISMPP, an independent, non-profit, professional association which has members in the pharmaceutical, medical device and biotechnology industries, said it plans to continue to work with industry companies, the academic community, journal editors, and other professional societies to ensure global standardization and the highest level of integrity in practices related to medical publications.

Follow InfectiousDiseaseNews.com on Twitter.