• [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Policies about physicians' involvement with pharmaceutical companies spawn contradictory ideas. One set of policies aims to stimulate collaboration between private companies and publicly employed researchers to spur innovation and economic growth, another addresses what is seen as the problem of physicians' conflicts of interest stemming from industry collaboration. This article explores how these contradictory policies interact with everyday practice in clinical hypertension research in Denmark. I argue that 'corporate' and 'academic' research is entangled as physicians participate in industry trials to pursue their own research. Building on document analysis, observations of contract research, and interviews with clinician researchers and industry executives, I show how the establishment of industry 'ties' can serve as a way for physicians to navigate the constraints of research infrastructures and live up to intergenerational norms that knit the medical collective together. I discuss how this entanglement shapes medical research in ways that may run counter to the aims of medical innovation policies and that conflicts of interest policies do little to address. I conclude that appreciation of the ways in which economic and moral valuations come together is necessary to understand the conditions for medical research in an intertwined public-private research environment.
    Social Studies of Science 08/2014; 44(4):531-54. DOI:10.1177/0306312714525678 · 2.15 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A number of research funders, biomedical journals, pharmaceutical companies, and regulatory agencies have adopted policies advocating or mandating that clinical trialists share data with external investigators. We therefore sought to determine whether certain characteristics of trialists or their trials are associated with more unfavorable perceptions of data sharing. To date, no prior research has addressed this issue.
    Trials 01/2014; 15:384. DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-15-384 · 2.12 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Since 2005, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) member journals have required that clinical trials be registered in publicly available trials registers before they are considered for publication. Objectives: The research explores whether it is adequate, when searching to inform systematic reviews, to search for relevant clinical trials using only public trials registers and to identify the optimal search approaches in trials registers. Methods: A search was conducted in ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for research studies that had been included in eight systematic reviews. Four search approaches (highly sensitive, sensitive, precise, and highly precise) were performed using the basic and advanced interfaces in both resources. Results: On average, 84% of studies were not listed in either resource. The largest number of included studies was retrieved in ClinicalTrials. gov and ICTRP when a sensitive search approach was used in the basic interface. The use of the advanced interface maintained or improved sensitivity in 16 of 19 strategies for Clinicaltrials. gov and 8 of 18 for ICTRP. No single search approach was sensitive enough to identify all studies included in the 6 reviews. Conclusions: Trials registers cannot yet be relied upon as the sole means to locate trials for systematic reviews. Trials registers lag behind the major bibliographic databases in terms of their search interfaces. Implications: For systematic reviews, trials registers and major bibliographic databases should be searched. Trials registers should be searched using sensitive approaches, and both the registers consulted in this study should be searched.
    Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA 07/2014; 102(3):177-83. DOI:10.3163/1536-5050.102.3.007 · 0.99 Impact Factor