Skip to main content
Advertisement
  • Neurology.org
  • Journals
    • Neurology
    • Clinical Practice
    • Genetics
    • Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
    • Education
  • Online Sections
    • COVID-19
    • Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Anti-racism, & Social Justice (IDEAS)
    • Innovations in Care Delivery
    • Practice Buzz
    • Practice Current
    • Residents & Fellows
    • Without Borders
  • Collections
    • Topics A-Z
    • Disputes & Debates
    • Health Disparities
    • Infographics
    • Patient Pages
    • Null Hypothesis
    • Translations
  • Podcast
  • CME
  • About
    • About the Journals
    • Contact Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Center

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Neurology.org
  • Journals
    • Neurology
    • Clinical Practice
    • Genetics
    • Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
    • Education
  • Online Sections
    • COVID-19
    • Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Anti-racism, & Social Justice (IDEAS)
    • Innovations in Care Delivery
    • Practice Buzz
    • Practice Current
    • Residents & Fellows
    • Without Borders
  • Collections
    • Topics A-Z
    • Disputes & Debates
    • Health Disparities
    • Infographics
    • Patient Pages
    • Null Hypothesis
    • Translations
  • Podcast
  • CME
  • About
    • About the Journals
    • Contact Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Center
  • Home
  • Latest Articles
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Residents & Fellows

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Neurology
Home
The most widely read and highly cited peer-reviewed neurology journal
  • Subscribe
  • My Alerts
  • Log in
Site Logo
  • Home
  • Latest Articles
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Residents & Fellows

Share

August 08, 2006; 67 (3) Editorials

How skeptical should we be about industry-sponsored studies?

David Chadwick, Michael Privitera
First published August 7, 2006, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000233974.67001.d0
David Chadwick
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Privitera
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Full PDF
Citation
How skeptical should we be about industry-sponsored studies?
David Chadwick, Michael Privitera
Neurology Aug 2006, 67 (3) 378-379; DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000233974.67001.d0

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Permissions

Make Comment

See Comments

Downloads
396

Share

  • Article
  • Info & Disclosures
Loading

This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.

In this issue of Neurology, Blum et al.1 report a randomized controlled study (RCT) that examines cognitive function following the addition of 500 mg/day of lamotrigine or 300 mg/day of topiramate to existing treatment with either carbamazepine or phenytoin. They show that topiramate has greater potential to harm cognitive function than does lamotrigine at the fixed doses used, something that might be expected from previous placebo-controlled regulatory studies of the two drugs, from some limited comparative studies of volunteers and patients, and from clinical experience gained post-marketing.2–5 Surely, then, we should simply applaud the fact that such careful methodology has been applied to a subject as important as the cognitive effects of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs).

But perhaps we should pause for thought and consider some of the issues that lie behind the study design and its reporting, because it highlights a number of issues about RCTs sponsored by industry. Industry of course has two main reasons for sponsoring RCTs: in order to license a drug for specific indications, usually by placebo-controlled add-on studies in epilepsy, and to support a drug’s marketing. The Blum et al. study can be considered a marketing study.

RCTs are accepted as the least biased means of detecting small but …

View Full Text

AAN Members

We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.

Google Safari Microsoft Edge Firefox

Click here to login

AAN Non-Member Subscribers

Click here to login

Purchase access

For assistance, please contact:
AAN Members (800) 879-1960 or (612) 928-6000 (International)
Non-AAN Member subscribers (800) 638-3030 or (301) 223-2300 option 3, select 1 (international)

Sign Up
Information on how to subscribe to Neurology and Neurology: Clinical Practice can be found here 

Purchase
Individual access to articles is available through the Add to Cart option on the article page.  Access for 1 day (from the computer you are currently using) is US$ 39.00.  Pay-per-view content is for the use of the payee only, and content may not be further distributed by print or electronic means.  The payee may view, download, and/or print the article for his/her personal, scholarly, research, and educational use.  Distributing copies (electronic or otherwise) of the article is not allowed.

Disputes & Debates: Rapid online correspondence

  • How skeptical should we be about industry-sponsored studies?
    • Kimford J. Meador, Department of Neurology, University of Florida, McKnight Brain Institute, U. Florida, PO Box 100236, Gainesville, FL 32610kimford.meador@neurology.ufl.edu
    Submitted December 04, 2006
  • Reply from the Author
    • David Chadwick, University of Liverpool, Walton Centre, Lower Lane, Liverpool L9 7LJ, UKd.w.chadwick@liverpool.ac.uk
    Submitted December 04, 2006
Comment

REQUIREMENTS

If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org

Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.

If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.

Submission specifications:

  • Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
  • Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
  • Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
  • Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
  • Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.

More guidelines and information on Disputes & Debates

Compose Comment

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
NOTE: The first author must also be the corresponding author of the comment.
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Publishing Agreement
NOTE: All authors, besides the first/corresponding author, must complete a separate Publishing Agreement Form and provide via email to the editorial office before comments can be posted.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

You May Also be Interested in

Back to top
  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Disclosures
Advertisement

Related Articles

  • Cognitive effects of lamotrigine compared with topiramate in patients with epilepsy

Topics Discussed

  • All Neuropsychology/Behavior
  • All Epilepsy/Seizures
  • All Clinical trials
  • Antiepileptic drugs

Alert Me

  • Alert me when eletters are published
Neurology: 98 (24)

Articles

  • Ahead of Print
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Popular Articles
  • Translations

About

  • About the Journals
  • Ethics Policies
  • Editors & Editorial Board
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise

Submit

  • Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Information for Reviewers
  • AAN Guidelines
  • Permissions

Subscribers

  • Subscribe
  • Activate a Subscription
  • Sign up for eAlerts
  • RSS Feed
Site Logo
  • Visit neurology Template on Facebook
  • Follow neurology Template on Twitter
  • Visit Neurology on YouTube
  • Neurology
  • Neurology: Clinical Practice
  • Neurology: Genetics
  • Neurology: Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
  • Neurology: Education
  • AAN.com
  • AANnews
  • Continuum
  • Brain & Life
  • Neurology Today

Wolters Kluwer Logo

Neurology | Print ISSN:0028-3878
Online ISSN:1526-632X

© 2022 American Academy of Neurology

  • Privacy Policy
  • Feedback
  • Advertise