ArticleThe Pan African medical journal2018
Ghostwriters in the scientific world.
Article in The Pan African medical journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The role of reviewers in the era of systematic reviews and meta-analysis: A practical guide for researchers.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2025Guideline
- Insights of Healthcare Professionals into Medical Writing Support at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Saudi Arabia.Cureus · 2024Article
- The pharmaceutical industry is dangerous to health. Further proof with COVID-19.Surgical neurology international · 2022Review
- Scientific authorship: a primer for researchers.Reumatologia · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The scientific world is facing a constant problem of ghostwriters. These ghostwriters are often attached to the medical publishing houses and are involved in writing an article for a pharmaceutical company which may, in turn, use the name of an established or a famous scientist as an author to the article. Often, such articles are published in well-known journals and are circulating widely. Many a time the adverse effects are overlooked in such papers. This will result in a corrupt practice of prescribing a drug which is not scientifically useful or may have life-threatening side effects. In this present article, the authors discuss this evil practice of ghostwriting in the context of the present day scientific publishing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.