首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology >Are All Clinical Studies Sponsored by Industry Not Valid?
【2h】

Are All Clinical Studies Sponsored by Industry Not Valid?

机译:行业赞助的所有临床研究均无效吗?

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Industry-sponsored studies have such a bad reputation that some journals require an additional statistical analysis by an independent statistician. This commentary discusses some of the reasons why academic people tend to believe that “academic” science is better than industry-driven science. Most likely, when it comes to publications, the risk of fraud exists in both worlds as the pressure to publish “significant” data is prevalent in both worlds. In contrast to the academic world, the level of control by regulatory bodies for industry-sponsored studies is much higher. Therefore, the quality of industry-driven studies is high, at least when it comes to the quality of data. One of the main reasons why academic people are so skeptical about the pharmaceutical industry is a lack of knowledge about the work done in industry. It is as demanding and scientific as in other industries. In turn, many physicians working in the pharmaceutical industry have low self-esteem. Also, the pharmaceutical industry should improve its self-presentation adequately to get rid of its bad image. There is a clear need for more communication between both worlds in order to better understand the mutual difficulties and needs.
机译:行业赞助的研究声誉欠佳,以至于某些期刊需要由独立统计学家进行额外的统计分析。该评论讨论了学术界人士倾向于认为“学术”科学优于行业驱动科学的一些原因。关于出版物,很可能在两个领域都存在欺诈风险,因为发布“重要”数据的压力在两个领域都普遍存在。与学术界相比,监管机构对行业赞助研究的控制水平要高得多。因此,至少在数据质量方面,行业驱动研究的质量很高。学术界人士如此对制药业持怀疑态度的主要原因之一是对制药业所做工作的了解不足。和其他行业一样,它要求很高且科学。反过来,许多从事制药行业的医生的自尊心也很低。此外,制药行业应充分改善其自我表象,以摆脱不良形象。显然需要在两个世界之间进行更多的交流,以便更好地了解相互的困难和需求。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号