Dear Editor
It is exciting that JVIM is now online, and that ACVIM diplomates receive it direct to our inboxes, ready to download. Open Access means that JVIM has a greater distribution, and therefore a larger influence on the veterinary community, and expands the “branding” of ACVIM to the world.
With such influence comes greater responsibility, as what is published in the JVIM reflects on the ACVIM as a whole, and on the Specialty groups it represents.
It was with some concern, then, that I read the review article in the latest JVIM, prominently presented as the one of the first and therefore apparently most important articles in this issue (A Review of Paclitaxel and Novel Formulations Including Those Suitable for Use in Dogs. J Vet Internal Med 2015;29:1006–1012).
My concern is that within this article, two of the five text pages are devoted to a single product based on only three publications. The product (Paccal Vet) is identified as a registered trademark of Oasmia. Two of the three authors of this article disclosed financial ties with Oasmia in a previous publication, and only one of these two disclosed a paid association with Oasmia in this review. Both of these authors disclosed current financial ties with Abbott (now acquired by Zoetis) in this article. However, what is not clearly stated in the present review article is that although registered to Oasmia, the product is distributed by Abbott Animal Health (now Zoetis). Oncologists may be well aware of the association between the drug and the company, but many general readers will not be; and it should be the combined role of the authors and the editors to ensure that there is no appearance, however unintended, of lack of transparency.
Conflict of interest disclosures are an important part of maintaining the credibility of publications in the medical and veterinary fields. Discussion papers about the influence of corporate sponsorship on outcomes in clinical trials were summarized in the journal Cancer (Conflict of interest in oncology publications: a survey of disclosure policies and statements. Kesselheim AS, Lee JL, Avorn J, et al. Cancer. 2012;118:188–195).
In my opinion, the need for clear disclosure is equally important for Review articles and Consensus statements. Specific guidelines for disclosure for review articles are more difficult to find, although leading journal The Lancet Oncology has a clear policy that “For any Review, Historical Review, Personal View, or Health‐care Development, The Lancet Oncology will not publish the manuscript if an author, within the past 3 years, and with a relevant company or competitor, has any stocks or shares, equity, a contract of employment, or a named position on a company board…” (Information for Authors; http://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/authors/icmje-coi-form.pdf).
Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine has a stated policy on transparency and conflict of interest that the “Authors of research articles must disclose at the time of submission any financial arrangement they have with the company whose product features prominently in the submitted manuscript, or with a company making a competing product.” The article I am concerned about is not a research article, but I would assert that transparency and conflict of interest is if anything more important for this type of review article, as being potentially even more influential.
With the readership of the JVIM expected to expand with online access, we need to exercise caution that the ACVIM does not find itself in a position where articles it publishes could cross the indistinct border between literature review and marketing.