Industry-funded papers

In my reading of the literature, I dutifully try to critically appraise the data presented, as encouraged in recent decades. Upon reading the excellent review of the benefits of herpes zoster vaccination by Shapiro et al¹ (an article blessed with the imprimatur of the College as being eligible for Mainpro M1 credits), I was seized with an angst, the resolution of which escapes me. The authors’ credentials are impeccable—I have no reason to doubt their statement of a lack of competing interests—but then they acknowledge that they received funding from the manufacturer of the vaccine. Precisely what this funding was for is unstated, but it is not unreasonable to infer that it was provided as recompense for writing the article in question, a conclusion which immediately calls into question the authors’ objectivity and lack of bias. Note that I am not in any way whatsoever impugning the honesty of these particular authors; rather the issue is the much broader question of what we are to make of industry-funded literature in our critical appraisal process. It is obvious that it introduces a considerable bias, but at the same time this does not de facto translate into lack of validity. In addition it raises considerable issues for journal editors—to what extent does the publication of such literature constitute complicity in covert advertising? And, beyond this, when the College accords the article in question M1 credits, adding a virtual imperative to read and absorb the content of the article, how are we to evaluate this?

• Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada