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: 3984

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

Wade VA, Mansfield PR, McDonald PJ.
Drug companies' evidence to justify advertising.
Lancet 1989 Nov 25; 2:(8674):1261-3


Abstract:

Ten international pharmaceutical companies were asked by letter to supply their best evidence in support of marketing claims for seventeen products. Fifteen replies were received. Seven replies cited a total of 67 references: 31 contained relevant original data and only 13 were controlled trials, all of which had serious methodological flaws. There were four reports of changes in advertising claims and one company ceased marketing nikethamide in the third world. Standards of evidence used to justify advertising claims are inadequate.

Keywords:
*analytic survey/references/quality of information/Medical Lobby for Appropriate Marketing/MaLAM/developing countries/company responses/PROMOTIONAL TECHNIQUES: USE OF REFERENCES Advertising/standards* Developing Countries Drug Industry/standards* Evaluation Studies Fraud Health Promotion/methods* Product Surveillance, Postmarketing/methods*

 

  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