OBJECTIVE: To determine the quality of claims in advertisements published in Australian medical publications, describe how benefits and harms are presented, and examine the level of underpinning evidence. DESIGN AND SETTING: Audit of a consecutive three-month sample of advertisements appearing in six popular Australian medical publications. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of advertisements with quantitative information; proportion of claims conveying clinical outcomes; where retrievable, level of underpinning evidence. RESULTS: Of 1504 claims, 855 could be substantiated quantitatively. Of these, 45% were supported by compelling evidence (randomised controlled trials or better). Of 13 claims explicitly reporting quantitative outcomes, none provided the absolute risk reduction or the number needed to treat. CONCLUSIONS: Our audit invites greater diligence by pharmaceutical companies in substantiating their claims and greater vigilance among clinicians when reading them.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Loke et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: