corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 16991

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Journal Article

Spielmans GI, Biehn TL, Sawrey DL
A Case Study of Salami Slicing: Pooled Analyses of Duloxetine for Depression
Psychother Psychosom 2010; 79:(2):97-106 [Epub ahead of print]
http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowAbstract&ArtikelNr=270917&Ausgabe=253773&ProduktNr=223864


Abstract:

Background: Publishing separate, yet very similar pieces of a single dataset across multiple papers is known as ‘salami slicing’. This practice may be motivated by researchers wishing to increase their publication counts and by the desire to increase exposure of their findings. ‘Salami slicing’ may also be used by the drug industry to help widely disseminate positive findings regarding its products. Journal editors across many scientific disciplines have bemoaned such duplicative publications on several occasions. However, little research has been conducted on the frequency of such publication practices, and findings have been inconsistent. No research has investigated whether ‘salami slicing’ may also occur in publications presenting results from pooled analyses of clinical trials. Methods: We examined the scientific literature on duloxetine as a treatment for depression, examining how data from clinical trials were reported across 43 pooled analyses. Results: The vast majority of pooled analyses (88%) had at least one author who was employed by the manufacturer of duloxetine. Several pooled analyses based on highly overlapping clinical trials presented efficacy and safety data that did not answer unique research questions, and thus appeared to qualify as salami publications. Six clinical trials had their data utilized as part of 20 or more separately published pooled analyses. Conclusions: Such redundant publications add little to scientific understanding and represent a poor use of peer reviewer and editorial resources.

Keywords:
Duloxetine Salami slicing, duplicate publication Depression Pooled analysis

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963