Phil B.FontanarosaMD, Deputy EditorIndividualAuthorStephen J.LurieMD, PhD, Fishbein FellowIndividualAuthor
Copyright 2000 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.2000
To the Editor: Mr Friedberg and colleagues1 have analyzed a sample of published pharmacoeconomic
studies and found that "pharmaceutical company-sponsored studies were less
likely than nonprofit sponsored studies to report unfavorable qualitative
conclusions." It is important to notice that they identified a publication
bias, not a study bias. In fact they fail to find biases in individual studies,
meaning that the peer review process work reasonably well and that individual
published studies are generally reliable. However, it is also important to
encourage publication of negative results. We recently published a study with
negative results2 despite reservations from
the referees. We felt that they would have been more enthusiastic about positive
results. Clinicians may also fear that reporting negative cost-effectiveness
results will reinforce nonmedical limitations to their autonomy to prescribe.
Le Pen C. Sources of Bias in the Economic Analysis of New Drugs. JAMA. 2000;283(11):1423-1424. doi:10.1001/jama.283.11.1421