JAMA tightens conflict-of-interest disclosure rules
Medical Staff Leader Connection, July 25, 2006
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Medical Staff Leader Connection!
The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) announced in its July 12 issue that authors must disclose all potential conflicts of interest, including specific financial interests and relationships relevant to the subject of the manuscript. Beginning in January 2007, JAMA will require disclosure from all authors, including declarations of no conflicts of interest, at the time of submission.
The tightening of the journal's disclosure rules comes as JAMA ran corrections of two recently published articles because the authors did not disclose all of their drug industry ties. JAMA issued a July 12 correction disclosing the drug industry ties of the authors of a study on the use of antidepressants among pregnant women originally published in the February 1 issue.
In the July 19 issue, JAMA ran a correction to an article published in the same issue on migraines and cardiovascular disease in women. The journal also published a letter from the authors, who stated that they believed their financial relationships were not relevant to the study.
"Authors should always err on the side of full disclosure and should contact the editorial office if they have any questions or concerns about what constitutes a relevant financial interest or relationship," stated a response from the JAMA editors. "As in the past, we will continue to evaluate all cases very seriously in which authors fail to fully disclose their conflict of interest information; not only will we continue to correct the literature, but we will continue to take additional necessary action based on the results of that evaluation."
To see the JAMA conflict-of-interest disclosure policy, click here.
Want to receive articles like this one in your inbox? Subscribe to Medical Staff Leader Connection!
Related Products
Most Popular
- Articles
-
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Topic: CMS, OESS post new security compliance review information, checklist
- What does case-mix index mean to you?
- Capturing all necessary codes for IUD insertion and removal can be challenging
- News and briefs: Oklahoma Osteopathic Association against residency bill change
- QA:Coding multiple initial infusions
- OB services: Coding inside and outside of the package
- HIPAA Q&A: Level of encryption needed for email
- E-mailed
-
- Featured blog post: Nurses face felony charges after reporting physician to the Texas Medical Board
- Q/A: Volume requirement for reporting hydration services
- New conflicts of interest create new challenges
- Q&A tackles coding questions about injections and infusions
- Joint Commission Center announces handoff communication solutions
- Inside best practice: Reduce patient falls with a stoplight
- Identify modifiable risk factors to prevent patient falls
- Hospitalist-surgeon comanagement has no effect on outcomes
- Catch up on what's new with injections and infusions
- Case Management Monthly, June 2012
- Searched
