Sandbox: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/forwiki/422.jpg
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/forwiki/423.jpg
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
British Medical Journal, 19 November, 2008 | British Medical Journal, 19 November, 2008 | ||
There has been a great deal of concern of bias when a researcher is testing the efetiveness of a new drug and has finnantial support from the company that produces the drug. In this paper the authors say that we should have the same concerns when newswriters report the effectiveness of a new drug produced by a company from which they have had financial rewards. | |||
They describe in detail how newswriters are rewarded from drug companies. They provide the following examples of rewards from drug companies: | |||
<center> http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/forwiki/422.jpg </center> | <center> http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/forwiki/422.jpg </center> | ||
Then they give suggestions how this could be avoided | |||
<center> http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/forwiki/423.jpg </center> | |||
Revision as of 19:19, 6 December 2008
Chance not in the News
Medicine and the Media Whose watching the watchdogs Lisa M Schwartz, Stephen Woloshin, Roy Moniham British Medical Journal, 19 November, 2008
There has been a great deal of concern of bias when a researcher is testing the efetiveness of a new drug and has finnantial support from the company that produces the drug. In this paper the authors say that we should have the same concerns when newswriters report the effectiveness of a new drug produced by a company from which they have had financial rewards.
They describe in detail how newswriters are rewarded from drug companies. They provide the following examples of rewards from drug companies:
Then they give suggestions how this could be avoided
