Poster Presenter

Quality of claims, references and the Presentation Of Risk Results In Medical Journal Advertising: A Comparative Study In Australia, Malaysia And The United States
Noordin Othman, Agnes Vitry and Elizabeth Roughead
Australia

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the quality of claims, references and the presentation of risk results in journal advertising in Australia, Malaysia and the United States.

Methods: A consecutive sample of 85 unique advertisements from each country was assessed. Claims, references and the presentation of risk results in medical journal advertising were compared between the three countries.

Results: Less than one-third of the claims were unambiguous claims (Australia, 30%, Malaysia 17%, US, 23%). In Malaysia significantly less unambiguous claims were provided than in Australia and the US (P < 0.001). However, the unambiguous claims were supported by more references than other claims (80%). Evidence obtained from at least one randomized controlled trial, a systematic review or meta analysis (Australia, 84%, Malaysia, 81%, US, 76%) were the most commonly used to support claims in all countries. However, data on file were significantly more likely to be cited in the US (17%) than in Australia (2%) and Malaysia (4%) (P < 0.001).Most advertisements that provided quantitative information reported risk results exclusively as relative risk reduction.

Conclusions: The majority of claims were vague suggesting poor quality of claims in journal advertising in these three countries. Evidence from a randomized controlled trial, systematic review or meta- analysis was commonly cited to support claims. However, the frequent use of data on file in the US raises concern on the quality of references in the US. The need to continue strengthening regulation of pharmaceutical promotion is warranted.