Ads in medical journals lack backing, experts find

Less than half the claims in ads from top ear, nose and throat journals are backed by data referenced by the advertiser, a new study finds.

That's a problem, some experts say, because such ads are known to sway how doctors treat their patients.

"As a result, people could be getting information that is misleading," said Dr. Jeffrey Spiegel, a head and neck surgeon at Boston University, who led the work. "It doesn't have to lead to actual harm, but it can still be wasted time and effort."

The study jibes with findings in other areas of medicine and stokes an already heated debate among editors of medical journals, the main lines of communication between doctors.

The global drug market is expected to hit $1.1 trillion in 2014, and it's estimated that drugmakers generate $2 to $5 for each dollar spent on advertising in medical journals - which might explain why they spend nearly twice as much on promotion to doctors than to consumers.

While most journals carry ads, a few have decided to ban them. Last February, for instance, editors from Emergency Medicine Australasia pulled the plug on ads, arguing they "conflict with the ethical duty of doctors to provide sound, unbiased advice for their patients."

But others say ads may help busy doctors stay abreast of the latest development in their field.

"I think the ads do serve a role," said Dr. Richard M. Rosenfeld, editor in chief of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, one of the journals whose ads were reviewed in the new study.

"Many times readers are alerted to a product they might not have discovered otherwise," Rosenfeld added.

TRADE GROUP CALLS FOR ACCURACY

That sentiment resonates with Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), a trade association.

"We believe that advertisements about prescription medicines can service the public health in a variety of ways, including increasing awareness about diseases and available treatment options," the group said in an emailed statement.

"That's why the PhRMA Guiding Principles clearly state that information in advertisements 'should be accurate and not misleading, should make claims only when supported by substantial evidence, should reflect balance between risks and benefits, and should be consistent with FDA approved labeling.'"

{pagebreak}

But the new study, in Archives of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, questions whether some companies are living up to those standards.

Spiegel and his colleagues chose a sample of 50 claims from ads in four top ENT journals and sent them to five ENT doctors for review. The reviewers then compared the claims to the references listed in the ads.