The editors are grateful for Dr Maxwell’s feedback and reflections on the difficulty of critically evaluating medical journal publications that have funding from industry.
In critically evaluating publications it is important to take many factors into account—the clinical relevance and importance of the work, the applicability to one’s practice, the quality and rigour of the methods used (in this case of the literature review and synthesis), and the reputations of the authors, as Dr Maxwell has alluded to.
While it is the responsibility of readers to apply critical appraisal skills to their reading, it is also the responsibility of authors to fully declare all potential competing interests that could affect the interpretation of their work; and it is the responsibility of medical journals to ensure that such competing interests are fully divulged. Dr Shapiro and her colleagues did declare that the work was financially supported by SIGMA Canadian Menopause Society through an unrestricted educational grant provided by Merck.1 However, the editors agree with Dr Maxwell’s concerns and think that a more complete statement of the authors’ potential competing interests and relationships with industry would have helped readers to evaluate the work more critically. We will incorporate his feedback in reviewing and publishing future work that has industry support.
- Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada