In a perfect world, in their work, all people would do what they do best—and only what they do best. Dancers would dance, singers would sing, and physicians and healthcare professionals would spend their time treating patients, teaching, and advancing the science of their profession.
I read with interest Dr. Fox’s perspective in the June issue of The Rheumatologist [TR] regarding ghost writing in medical research. Dr. Fox is all for integrity in research (who isn’t?); nevertheless, he takes to task some of the people (Ross et al and the editors of the Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA]) who write about the corrupting influence of industry on physicians, including those in academics [JAMA 2008;299(15):1800-1812]. Part of his motivation may be to defend members of ACR who have been involved in the activity of ghostwriting and guest editing. This approach may play well to readers of The Rheumatologist, but it would seem that Dr. Fox should address his concerns to the editors of JAMA. That way, the authors of the article could offer a rebuttal to Dr. Fox’s concerns and assertions, and we all could get closer to the truth about this important issue.
A valuable early research education
Future advances could be challenged by structural barriers within the specialty
Moving forward and reflecting back
New technology comes with a host of pros and cons
Is a novel treatment breakthrough on the horizon?
Jeffrey Siegel, MD: A rare combination of clinical scientist and regulatory collaborator
In my years of coding for rheumatology, I am often asked this type of question: “I have a patient who recently came in for a visit. She had two or three diagnoses, was placed on three or four different medications, and we ran one or two labs on her. Does this qualify for a level-four visit?”