This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;127:1178-1180.

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

AS EDITORS OF GENERAL medical journals, we recognize that the publication of clinical research findings in respected peer-reviewed journals is the ultimate basis for most treatment decisions. Public discourse about this published evidence of efficacy and safety rests on the assumption that clinical trials data have been gathered and are presented in an objective and dispassionate manner. This discourse is vital to the scientific practice of medicine because it shapes treatment decisions made by physicians and drives public and private health care policy. We are concerned that the current intellectual environment in which some clinical research is conceived, study subjects are recruited, and the data analyzed and reported (or not reported) may threaten this precious objectivity.

Clinical trials are powerful tools; like all powerful tools, they must be used with care. They allow investigators to test biological hypotheses in living patients, and they have the potential to change the standards . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Editor's Note
William J. Richtsmeier
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;127(10):1178.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Bidirectional Conflicts of Interest Involving Industry and Medical Journals: Who Will Champion Integrity?
Lanier
Mayo Clin Proc. 2009;84:771-775.
FULL TEXT