Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Of porcupines and poodles—a joint challenge to industry and the profession

  • Special Contribution
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Wager E (2003) How to dance with porcupines: rules and guidelines on doctors’ relations with drug companies. BMJ 326:1196–1198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lewis S, Baird P, Evans RG, Ghali WA, Wright CJ, Gibson E et al (2001) Dancing with the porcupine: rules for governing the university–industry relationship. CMAJ 165(6):783–785

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Willett M (2003) Time to untangle doctors from drug companies. BMJ 326:cover. Available from: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/content/vol326/issue7400/cover.shtml

  4. Sigworth SK, Nettleman MD, Cohen GM (2001) Pharmaceutical branding of resident physicians. JAMA 286(9):1024–1025

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Orlowski JP, Wateska L (1992) The effects of pharmaceutical firm enticements on physician prescribing patterns; there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Chest 102(1):270–273

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chren MM, Landefeld CS (1994) Physicians’ behavior and their interactions with drug companies: a controlled study of physicians who requested additions to a hospital drug formulary. JAMA 271(9):684–689

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (2004) Code on interactions with healthcare professionals. Available from: http://www.phrma.org/code_on_interactions_with_healthcare_professionals/

  8. Grande D, Volpp K (2003) Cost and quality of industry-sponsored meals for medical residents. JAMA 290(9):1150–1151

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Mainous A, Hueston W, Rich E (1995) Patient perceptions of physician acceptance of gifts from the pharmaceutical industry. Arch Fam Med 4:335–339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gibbons RV, Landry FJ, Blouch DL, Jones DL, Williams FK, Lucey CR et al (1998) A comparison of physicians’ and patients’ attitudes toward pharmaceutical industry gifts. J Gen Intern Med 13(3):151–154

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Blake RL Jr, Early EK (1995) Patients’ attitudes about gifts to physicians from pharmaceutical companies. J Am Board Fam Pract 8(6):457–464

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. CPSI News (2003) Science and money don’t mix. Americans think that doctors are influenced by drug companies’ gifts. Available from: http://www.cspinet.org/new/200307111.html

  13. Kim SY, Millard RW, Nisbet P, Cox C, Caine ED (2004) Potential research participants’ views regarding researcher and institutional financial conflicts of interest. J Med Ethics 30(1):73–79

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Wazana A (2000) Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: is a gift ever just a gift? JAMA 283(3):373–380

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Neslin S (2001) Analysis of pharmaceutical promotion RAPP: an independent study. Available from: http://www.rxpromoroi.org/rapp/index.html

  16. Moynihan R (2003) Drug company sponsorship of education could be replaced at a fraction of its cost. BMJ 326(7400):1163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. House of Commons Health Committee (2005) The influence of the pharmaceutical industry, HC 42–1. The Stationery Office, London

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bacon F (1605) The advancement of learning. Henrie Tomes, London

    Google Scholar 

  19. Smith A (1776) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Methuen, London

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kealey T (1996) The economic laws of scientific research. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  21. Friedberg M, Saffran B, Stinson TJ, Nelson W, Bennett CL (1999) Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology. JAMA 282(15):1453–1457

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Stelfox HT, Chua G, O’Rourke K, Detsky AS (1998) Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists. N Engl J Med 338(2):101–106

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Clifford TJ, Barrowman NJ, Moher D (2002) Funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality: are they related? Results of a pilot study. BMC Health Serv Res 2(1):18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 289(4):454–465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Baker CB, Johnsrud MT, Crismon ML, Rosenheck RA, Woods SW (2003) Quantitative analysis of sponsorship bias in economic studies of antidepressants. Br J Psychiatry 183:498–506

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, Kjaergard LL (2003) Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA 290(7):921–928

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D, Montori VM, Schunemann H, Sprague S et al (2004) Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. CMAJ 170(4):477–480

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 326(7400):1167–1170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Andersen N (2006) Gunnar Lose vs. Yamanouchi. J Dan Med Assoc/Ugeskr Laeger 168(6):546

    Google Scholar 

  30. Chapple CR, Martinez-Garcia R, Selvaggi L, Toozs-Hobson P, Warnack W, Drogendijk T et al (2005) A comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of solifenacin succinate and extended release tolterodine at treating overactive bladder syndrome: results of the STAR trial. Eur Urol 48(3):464–470

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Wager E, Field EA, Grossman L (2003) Good publication practice for pharmaceutical companies. Curr Med Res Opin 19(3):149–154

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Jacobs A, Wager E (2005) European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) guidelines on the role of medical writers in developing peer-reviewed publications. Curr Med Res Opin 21(2):317–322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2006) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. Latest update. Available from: http://www.icmje.org

  34. Smith R (2005) Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Med 2(5):e138

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Horton R (2004) The dawn of McScience. N Y Rev Books 51(4):7–9

    Google Scholar 

  36. Angell M (2004) The truth about drug companies: how they deceive us and what to do about it. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  37. Cho MK, Bero LA (1996) The quality of drug studies published in symposium proceedings. Ann Intern Med 124(5):485–489

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH, Cheung CM, Hayes JA, Chalmers TC (1994) Evaluating the quality of articles published in journal supplements compared with the quality of those published in the parent journal. JAMA 272(2):108–113

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Supplement (2004) New developments in the management of female stress urinary incontinence. BJU Int 94(s1):1–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Van McCrary S, Anderson CB, Jakovljevic J, Khan T, McCullough LB, Wray NP et al (2000) A national survey of policies on disclosure of conflicts of interest in biomedical research. N Engl J Med 343(22):1621–1626

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Haivas I, Schroter S, Waechter F, Smith R (2004) Editors’ declaration of their own conflicts of interest. CMAJ 171(5):475–476

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (2006) Facts & statistics from the pharmaceutical industry. Available from: http://www.abpi.org.uk/statistics/intro.asp

  43. DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG (2003) The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 22(2):151–185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. National Institute for Health Care Management (2002) Changing patterns of pharmaceutical innovation. The National Institute for Health Care Management Research and Educational Foundation, Washington DC

  45. Goozer M (2004) The $800 million pill: the truth behind the cost of new drugs. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ulmsten U, Petros P (1995) Intravaginal slingplasty (IVS): an ambulatory surgical procedure for treatment of female urinary incontinence. Scand J Urol Nephrol 29(1):75–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Ulmsten U, Henriksson L, Johnson P, Varhos G (1996) An ambulatory surgical procedure under local anesthesia for treatment of female urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 7(2):81–85

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Hilton P (2006) But will it work, doctor? Evidence-based surgery for stress incontinence. In: Hillard T (ed) New horizons in obstetrics and gynaecology (formerly the RCOG Yearbook of Obstetrics and Gynaecology). RCOG, London (in press)

  49. European Association of Euro-Pharmaceutical Companies (2005) What are the threats to parallel trade. Available from: http://www.eaepc.org/parallel_trade/threats.php?n=2

  50. Blumenthal D (2004) Doctors and drug companies. N Engl J Med 351(18):1885–1890

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Moynihan R, Cassels A (2005) Seeling sickness: how drug companies are turning us all into patients. Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW

    Google Scholar 

  52. Kassirer J (2005) On the take: how medicine’s complicity with big business can endanger your health. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  53. Central Medical Affairs team, SmithKline Beecham (1998) Seroxat/Paxil adolescent depression: position piece on the phase III clinical studies. Available from: http://www.ahrp.org/risks/SSRI0204/GSKpaxil/pg1.html

  54. Boseley S (2004) Company ‘held back’ data on drug for children. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1137542,00.html

  55. Supreme Court of the State of New York (2004) Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York against GlaxoSmithKline plc and SmithKlineBeecham Corp. Available from: http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2004/jun/jun2b_04_attach1.pdf

  56. Gunnell D, Saperia J, Ashby D (2005) Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and suicide in adults: meta-analysis of drug company data from placebo controlled, randomised controlled trials submitted to the MHRA’s safety review. BMJ 330(7488):385–388

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Fergusson D, Doucette S, Glass KC, Shapiro S, Healy D, Hebert P et al (2005) Association between suicide attempts and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 330(7488):396–399

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Declaration of interests

I was previously responsible for a multi-centred randomised trial of surgery for stress incontinence funded by Gynecare.

I have also previously been involved in development work on surgical implants for stress incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse funded by GyneIdeas.

I have no current personal or non-personal, specific or non-specific interests. As a general rule I avoid free lunches having long since realised that they do not exist!

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 4LP, England, UK

    Paul Hilton

Authors
  1. Paul Hilton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Hilton.

Additional information

This paper is based on a state-of-the-art lecture given at the 30th annual meeting of the International Urogynecological Association in Copenhagen, Denmark, on 12 August 2005.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hilton, P. Of porcupines and poodles—a joint challenge to industry and the profession. Int Urogynecol J 18, 3–11 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-006-0218-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-006-0218-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation