The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×
Published Online:

To the Editor: We thank Dr. Montgomery for highlighting the important work of his group. As he is well aware, compiling and abstracting clinical trials requires numerous assumptions about study outcome. Likewise, the analyses of association between funding source and outcome require further assumptions, most notably that competing interests are reported consistently. Other issues are more subtle: Should any author with a competing interest or only the first author be considered? Does any kind of support, such as free medication, confer the same risk? Published studies vary somewhat in their application of these definitions.

Nonetheless, what is clear from the body of evidence is that the relationship between funding source, competing interests, and reported outcome is one that we need to understand better. Having shown that associations exist, the task now is to clarify why that might be and what, if anything, might be done about it.

Boston, Mass. Providence, R.I.