Extensive selective reporting of quality of life in clinical study reports and publications of placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants.

Background: Selective reporting of trial results is common.

Objective: To study selective reporting in clinical study reports, company trial registers and publications of quality of life in placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants.

Methods: We compared clinical study reports of four antidepressants (fluoxetine, duloxetine, paroxetine and sertraline) obtained from two European drug regulators, data from online company registers, and publications received or retrieved from Eli Lilly and GlaxoSmithKline.

Systematic review finds that appraisal tools for medical research studies address conflicts of interest superficially.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to identify and summarize 1) appraisal tools and other guides which address conflicts of interest in medical research studies; and 2) top journals with policies on managing conflicts of interest in journal papers.

Study Design And Setting: We searched bibliographic databases, other sources, and websites of 30 top medical journals. Two authors selected documents and extracted data.

Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews: associations with results, conclusions, and methodological quality.

Background: Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews (e.g. funding by drug or device companies or authors' collaboration with such companies) may impact on how the reviews are conducted and reported.

Collaboration between academics and industry in clinical trials: cross sectional study of publications and survey of lead academic authors.

Objectives: To determine the role of academic authors, funders, and contract research organisations in industry funded trials of vaccines, drugs, and devices and to determine lead academic authors' experiences with industry funder collaborations.

Design: Cross sectional analysis of trial publications and survey of lead academic authors.

Eligibility Criteria For Selecting Studies: The most recent 200 phase III and IV trials of vaccines, drugs, and devices with full industry funding, at least one academic author, published in one of the top seven high impact general medical journals (, , , , , , and ).

Under-reporting of conflicts of interest among trialists: a cross-sectional study.

Objectives: To determine the prevalence of conflicts of interest (COIs) among Danish physicians who are authors of clinical drug trial reports and determine the extent of undisclosed COIs in trial publications.

Design: Cross-sectional study.

Setting: The 100 most recent drug trial reports with at least one Danish non-industry employed physician author published in a journal adhering to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' (ICMJE) manuscript guidelines.

Online eLearning for undergraduates in health professions: A systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction.

Background: Health systems worldwide are facing shortages in health professional workforce. Several studies have demonstrated the direct correlation between the availability of health workers, coverage of health services, and population health outcomes. To address this shortage, online eLearning is increasingly being adopted in health professionals' education.

Offline eLearning for undergraduates in health professions: A systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction.

Background: The world is short of 7.2 million health-care workers and this figure is growing. The shortage of teachers is even greater, which limits traditional education modes.

Citations of scientific results and conflicts of interest: the case of mammography screening.

Introduction: In 2001, a Cochrane review of mammography screening questioned whether screening reduces breast cancer mortality, and a more comprehensive review in Lancet, also in 2001, reported considerable overdiagnosis and overtreatment. This led to a heated debate and a recent review of the evidence by UK experts intended to be independent.

Objective: To explore if general medical and specialty journals differed in accepting the results and methods of three Cochrane reviews on mammography screening.