The article by Flook et al1 on management of undiagnosed chest pain suggests a therapeutic trial of a proton pump inhibitor. While this approach sounds wholly reasonable, this particular article raises a serious issue of credibility. The authors state, under competing interests, “None declared.” At the same time, Dr Karlson (one of the contributing authors) discloses that he works for AstraZeneca, who manufacture one of the proton pumps recommended. I do not doubt that the good doctor declared that he had no competing interests, but I would suggest that, absent some good evidence to the contrary, it would certainly appear otherwise.
In recent years, increasing attention has been paid by journal editors to ensuring the scientific accuracy and validity of articles published under their banner. I fully appreciate that it is simply impossible for editors to verify the truth and accuracy of every declaration made in the hundreds of articles which cross their desks, but when the information available conflicts, perhaps they have an obligation to question the statements. In this instance, if indeed there be a valid explanation for the apparent discrepancy, perhaps even the unusual step of an editorial reassurance that the accuracy of the declaration has been verified would serve to re-establish the credibility of the content of the article. The phenomenon of “ghost-written” medical literature is well established. As it stands, it appears that you have been used by the pharmaceutical industry to publish very well crafted advertising in the guise of science. I sincerely hope that this appearance is unfounded.
- Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada