Pharmaceutical advertisement claims in Australian medical publications.
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.


METHODS
Audit of a consecutive three-month sample of advertisements appearing in six popular Australian medical publications.


METHODS
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.
Loke
Tim W
TW
Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Koh
Fong Chee
FC
Ward
Jeanette E
JE
D000329:Advertising; D001315:Australia; D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D008192:Deception; D030881:Disclosure; D004341:Drug Evaluation / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D004345:Drug Industry; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D006801:Humans; D010506:Periodicals as Topic; D012306:Risk; D016896:Treatment Outcome