• Jeffrey R Lacasse, Jonathan Leo, Andrea N Cimino, Kristen F Bean, and Melissa Del-Colle.
• School of Social Work, College of Public Programs, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA. jeffrey.lacasse@asu.edu
• BMC Res Notes. 2012 Jan 1; 5: 490.

BackgroundThere is much concern regarding undisclosed corporate authorship ("ghostwriting") in the peer-reviewed medical literature. However, there are no studies of how disclosure of ghostwriting alone impacts the perceived credibility of research results.FindingsWe conducted a randomized vignette study with experienced nurses (n = 67), using a fictional study of antidepressant medication. The vignette described a randomized controlled trial and gave efficacy and adverse effect rates. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two authorship conditions, either (a) traditional authorship (n = 35) or (b) ghostwritten paper (n = 32), and then completed a perceived credibility scale. Our primary hypothesis was that the median perceived credibility score total would be lower in the group assigned to the ghostwritten paper. Our secondary hypotheses were that participants randomized to the ghostwritten condition would be less likely to (a) recommend the medication, and (b) want the psychiatrist in the vignette as their own clinician. We also asked respondents to estimate efficacy and adverse effect rates for the medication.There was a statistically significant difference in perceived credibility among those assigned to the ghostwriting condition. This amounted to a difference of 9.0 points on the 35-point perceived credibility scale as tested through the Mann-Whitney U test. There was no statistically significant difference between groups in terms of recommending the medication, wanting the featured clinician as their own, or in estimates of efficacy or adverse effects (p > .05 for all such comparisons).ConclusionIn this study, disclosure of ghostwriting resulted in lower perceived credibility ratings.

10 keywords...

hide…