ArticleOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2010
The need for a transparent, ethical, and successful relationship between academic scientists and the pharmaceutical industry: a view of the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science (GREES).
Article in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The relationship between paediatric practitioners and 'industry'.Paediatrics & child health · 2017Article
- Ten recommendations for closing the credibility gap in reporting industry-sponsored clinical research: a joint journal and pharmaceutical industry perspective.Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledThis paper provides recommendations for fair and unbiased relationship between academic scientists and the pharmaceutical industry.
introductionReal or perceived problems in the relationship between academics and the industry have been the subject of much recent debate. It has been suggested that academic clinicians should sever all links with the industry-a view that is rarely challenged.
methodsAcademic experts and members of the pharmaceutical industry were invited to an expert consensus meeting to debate this topic. This meeting was organized by the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science. Conflict of interest, competing interest, right and duties of academic scientist, authorship, and staff and student education were discussed.
resultsGuidelines for a transparent, ethical, strong, and successful partnership between the academic scientist and the pharmaceutical industry have been provided.
conclusionsThe Group support interactions between the industry and clinicians provided that it is transparent and ethical.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20238101What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.