Skip Navigation



Rheumatology Advance Access published online on March 10, 2006
Rheumatology, doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kel073
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
45/9/1154    most recent
kel073v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by van Winkelen, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by van Winkelen, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Received November 22, 2005
Accepted February 7, 2006

Concise Report

How evidence-based are advertisements in journals regarding the subspecialty of rheumatology?

P. van Winkelen 1, J. S. van Denderen 1, C. Y. Vossen 1, T. W. J. Huizinga 2, F. W. Dekker 1 *, and for the SEDUCE study group

1 Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
2 Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
F. W. Dekker, E-mail: F.W.Dekker{at}lumc.nl


  Abstract

Objectives. In rheumatology, five different billion-dollar drugs have emerged in recent years, making this subspecialty the focus of extensive advertising campaigns. Considering this development and the fact that the scientific content of advertisements has been questioned, we initiated a study to determine how evidence-based advertisements are in four leading journals of rheumatology.

Methods. Advertisements were extracted from the journals Arthritis and Rheumatism, Rheumatology, Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism and the Journal of Rheumatology, and were evaluated using a standardized score form.

Results. In total, 353 advertisements were obtained, of which 84 were unique. Of the 300 references provided by these unique advertisements, 53 (18%) were considered ‘supporting’. In addition, 87 (29%) of the 300 references referred to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), of which 49% supported the claim. The vast majority of RCTs (97%) were sponsored by the advertising company. In the 84 unique advertisements 288 claims were made, of which 190 provided one or more references. Of these 190 claims, 33 (17%) were judged ‘well supported’. In total, only four (5%) of the 84 different advertisements were judged ‘well supported’ and 11 (13%) of the 84 were judged ‘misleading’ because they contained one or more misleading claims, i.e. claims with references to articles contradicting the claim.

Conclusions. This study indicates that few advertisements in rheumatology journals are entirely evidence-based.

Keywords: Advertisements; Evidence-based; Rheumatology..
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.