Merrill Goozner, who heads the Integrity in Science project for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, consistently points out conflicts of interest involving doctors and big pharma. And he’s caught another one. Here’s what he writes about a newsletter published by the same folks who bring us The New England Journal of Medicine:

The Massachusetts Medical Society also publishes a popular line of journal digests for busy physicians. The latest issue of its “Women’s Health” newsletter reviews the latest literature on giving antidepressants to pregnant women. Here’s the bottom line from Harvard professor Claudio Soares:

“Despite the cautionary remarks commonly made by most regulatory agencies and medical societies about the use of psychotropic medications during pregnancy, considerable data supporting the efficacy and reproductive safety of antidepressants have accrued. Conversely, evidence suggests that untreated depression has negative consequences for both mother and child.”

As Gooz writes: It would have been nice if the article, one of the few from the publisher that is freely available on the Internet, had let subscribing physicians or inquiring consumers know that Dr. Soares receives consulting and speakers fees from a half dozen manufacturers of antidepressant drugs, and has conducted research for Eli Lilly.

Instead of publishing that information at the end of the article, where most conflict-of-interest disclosure statements get placed, Journal Watch disclosed Dr. Soares’ financial ties here, which is two clicks down from the journal’s “site map” page.

And this is our message to Ken Peelle, the MMS president, and his staff: You need to implement a consistent transparency policy toward such disclosures. This approach doesn’t work and does a disservice to doctors and their patients alike.

Source: GoozNews[tags]Conflicts Of Interest, Massachusetts Medical Society, Merrill Goozner[/tags]