PLoS medicine
-
Review
Medical students' exposure to and attitudes about the pharmaceutical industry: a systematic review.
The relationship between health professionals and the pharmaceutical industry has become a source of controversy. Physicians' attitudes towards the industry can form early in their careers, but little is known about this key stage of development. ⋯ Undergraduate medical education provides substantial contact with pharmaceutical marketing, and the extent of such contact is associated with positive attitudes about marketing and skepticism about negative implications of these interactions. These results support future research into the association between exposure and attitudes, as well as any modifiable factors that contribute to attitudinal changes during medical education. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.
-
Lawrence Gostin and colleagues discuss their work on the Joint Action and Learning Initiative on National and Global Responsibilities for Health (JALI), which aims to secure a global health agreement (such as a Framework Convention on Global Health) that would inform post-Millennium Development Goal global health commitments.
-
In the introductory article to a six-part PLoS Medicine series on Migration & Health, series guest editors Cathy Zimmerman, Mazeda Hossain, and Ligia Kiss outline a migratory process framework that involves five phases: pre-departure, travel, destination, interception, and return.
-
Review Meta Analysis Comparative Study
Meta-analyses of adverse effects data derived from randomised controlled trials as compared to observational studies: methodological overview.
There is considerable debate as to the relative merits of using randomised controlled trial (RCT) data as opposed to observational data in systematic reviews of adverse effects. This meta-analysis of meta-analyses aimed to assess the level of agreement or disagreement in the estimates of harm derived from meta-analysis of RCTs as compared to meta-analysis of observational studies. ⋯ Empirical evidence from this overview indicates that there is no difference on average in the risk estimate of adverse effects of an intervention derived from meta-analyses of RCTs and meta-analyses of observational studies. This suggests that systematic reviews of adverse effects should not be restricted to specific study types. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.