This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;127:1178.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Almost no one in otolaryngology–head and neck surgery (OHNS) is exempt from some kind of conflict of interest in reporting or interpreting research information. The problem of influence is often internal and potentially high when we, as surgeons, describe new procedures that advance our individual technical value. External influence can be enormous when it is pushed by instrument or drug company venture. What we study, interpret, and write for head and neck medicine is passed on to the rest of medicine because of the high incidence and prevalence of OHNS patient complaints. Although we are a small number of specialists, our writings influence many. Previous editorial policy, stated by Catherine DeAngelis et al (JAMA. 2001;286:89-91), reflects a need to acknowledge the influence that drug companies have exerted on medical research reporting. The JAMA September 12, 2001, editorial reprinted below (JAMA. 2001;286:1232-1234) states how the American Medical . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLE

Sponsorship, Authorship, and Accountability
Frank Davidoff, Catherine D. DeAngelis, Jeffrey M. Drazen, John Hoey, Liselotte Højgaard, Richard Horton, Sheldon Kotzin, M. Gary Nicholls, Magne Nylenna, A. John P. M. Overbeke, Harold C. Sox, Martin B. Van Der Weyden, and Michael S. Wilkes
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;127(10):1178-1180.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT