Ghost Authorship Haunts Industry-Funded Clinical Trials. Warren, M. ![Ghost Authorship Haunts Industry-Funded Clinical Trials [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex Drug companies make big contributions to analysis in the trials they fund but can fail to report their contributions. [Excerpt] An analysis of industry-funded clinical trials has found that drug companies are often heavily involved in research – but are not always transparent about it. Kristine Rasmussen, a medical researcher at the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen, and colleagues searched 7 high-impact medical journals [...]. The team found that both academics and their industry partners contributed to the design and reporting of most of those trials. However, fewer than half the trials had academics involved in data analysis, whereas 73\,% had funders involved [...] About 21\,% of the academic authors indicated that a funder, or one of their contracted employees, had been involved in the design, analysis, or reporting of the research in a way that had not been declared in the paper. This ” ghost authorship” could potentially be more widespread than this, write Rasmussen and her colleagues, as academic researchers who had a relatively small role in a study may not have been aware of the extent of industry involvement. Rasmussen says she was surprised by how common these undeclared contributions and associated issues were. ” It's incredibly inaccurately reported,” she says. ” The roles of the funder were often downplayed or even omitted in the publications, funder employees rarely had first or last authorship despite having played a role in every single part of the trial.” [...]
@article{warrenGhostAuthorshipHaunts2018,
title = {Ghost Authorship Haunts Industry-Funded Clinical Trials},
author = {Warren, Matthew},
date = {2018-10},
journaltitle = {Nature},
issn = {0028-0836},
doi = {10.1038/d41586-018-06986-x},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06986-x},
abstract = {Drug companies make big contributions to analysis in the trials they fund but can fail to report their contributions.
[Excerpt] An analysis of industry-funded clinical trials has found that drug companies are often heavily involved in research -- but are not always transparent about it. Kristine Rasmussen, a medical researcher at the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen, and colleagues searched 7 high-impact medical journals [...]. The team found that both academics and their industry partners contributed to the design and reporting of most of those trials. However, fewer than half the trials had academics involved in data analysis, whereas 73\,\% had funders involved [...] About 21\,\% of the academic authors indicated that a funder, or one of their contracted employees, had been involved in the design, analysis, or reporting of the research in a way that had not been declared in the paper. This ” ghost authorship” could potentially be more widespread than this, write Rasmussen and her colleagues, as academic researchers who had a relatively small role in a study may not have been aware of the extent of industry involvement.
Rasmussen says she was surprised by how common these undeclared contributions and associated issues were. ” It's incredibly inaccurately reported,” she says. ” The roles of the funder were often downplayed or even omitted in the publications, funder employees rarely had first or last authorship despite having played a role in every single part of the trial.” [...]},
keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14649676,authorship,publication-bias,research-funding,research-management,science-ethics,scientific-communication,transparency}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"iPdQYgevW4RboqWwH","bibbaseid":"warren-ghostauthorshiphauntsindustryfundedclinicaltrials","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Warren, M."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Ghost Authorship Haunts Industry-Funded Clinical Trials","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Warren"],"firstnames":["Matthew"],"suffixes":[]}],"date":"2018-10","journaltitle":"Nature","issn":"0028-0836","doi":"10.1038/d41586-018-06986-x","url":"https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06986-x","abstract":"Drug companies make big contributions to analysis in the trials they fund but can fail to report their contributions. [Excerpt] An analysis of industry-funded clinical trials has found that drug companies are often heavily involved in research – but are not always transparent about it. Kristine Rasmussen, a medical researcher at the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen, and colleagues searched 7 high-impact medical journals [...]. The team found that both academics and their industry partners contributed to the design and reporting of most of those trials. However, fewer than half the trials had academics involved in data analysis, whereas 73\\,% had funders involved [...] About 21\\,% of the academic authors indicated that a funder, or one of their contracted employees, had been involved in the design, analysis, or reporting of the research in a way that had not been declared in the paper. This ” ghost authorship” could potentially be more widespread than this, write Rasmussen and her colleagues, as academic researchers who had a relatively small role in a study may not have been aware of the extent of industry involvement. Rasmussen says she was surprised by how common these undeclared contributions and associated issues were. ” It's incredibly inaccurately reported,” she says. ” The roles of the funder were often downplayed or even omitted in the publications, funder employees rarely had first or last authorship despite having played a role in every single part of the trial.” [...]","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14649676,authorship,publication-bias,research-funding,research-management,science-ethics,scientific-communication,transparency","bibtex":"@article{warrenGhostAuthorshipHaunts2018,\n title = {Ghost Authorship Haunts Industry-Funded Clinical Trials},\n author = {Warren, Matthew},\n date = {2018-10},\n journaltitle = {Nature},\n issn = {0028-0836},\n doi = {10.1038/d41586-018-06986-x},\n url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06986-x},\n abstract = {Drug companies make big contributions to analysis in the trials they fund but can fail to report their contributions.\n\n[Excerpt] An analysis of industry-funded clinical trials has found that drug companies are often heavily involved in research -- but are not always transparent about it. Kristine Rasmussen, a medical researcher at the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen, and colleagues searched 7 high-impact medical journals [...]. The team found that both academics and their industry partners contributed to the design and reporting of most of those trials. However, fewer than half the trials had academics involved in data analysis, whereas 73\\,\\% had funders involved [...] About 21\\,\\% of the academic authors indicated that a funder, or one of their contracted employees, had been involved in the design, analysis, or reporting of the research in a way that had not been declared in the paper. This ” ghost authorship” could potentially be more widespread than this, write Rasmussen and her colleagues, as academic researchers who had a relatively small role in a study may not have been aware of the extent of industry involvement.\n\nRasmussen says she was surprised by how common these undeclared contributions and associated issues were. ” It's incredibly inaccurately reported,” she says. ” The roles of the funder were often downplayed or even omitted in the publications, funder employees rarely had first or last authorship despite having played a role in every single part of the trial.” [...]},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14649676,authorship,publication-bias,research-funding,research-management,science-ethics,scientific-communication,transparency}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Warren, M."],"key":"warrenGhostAuthorshipHaunts2018","id":"warrenGhostAuthorshipHaunts2018","bibbaseid":"warren-ghostauthorshiphauntsindustryfundedclinicaltrials","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06986-x"},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-14649676","authorship","publication-bias","research-funding","research-management","science-ethics","scientific-communication","transparency"],"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://tmpfiles.org/dl/58794/INRMM.bib","creationDate":"2020-07-02T22:41:33.142Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-14649676","authorship","publication-bias","research-funding","research-management","science-ethics","scientific-communication","transparency"],"search_terms":["ghost","authorship","haunts","industry","funded","clinical","trials","warren"],"title":"Ghost Authorship Haunts Industry-Funded Clinical Trials","year":null,"dataSources":["DXuKbcZTirdigFKPF"]}