Moved: Scientific Journals

[Osteotate]

http://chronicle.com/news/article/3170/medicare-endorses-clinical-journals-with-questionable-policies-critics-say

October 3, 2007
Medicare Endorses Clinical Journals With Questionable Policies, Critics Say

Last month the federal government made a quiet adjustment to a list of scientific journals consulted in paying Medicare claims, and critics say the change, which potentially affects hundreds of thousands of cancer patients, could leave them with inadequate protection.

Medicare requires contractors to consider current scientific evidence when deciding whether to approve payments for the use of specific medications and other treatments. For 14 years contractors have used an approved list of 15 peer-reviewed journals, including such heavyweights as the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association, to assess whether clinical evidence supports the use of particular treatments.

Since 2003 the American Society of Clinical Oncology has been pushing to expand that list. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services solicited public comments last year and decided last month to add 11 more journals to the list..

But the Center for Science in the Public Interest argued this week that many of the new and old journals on the list do not conform to the most rigorous publishing standards. Specifically, most of the new journals do not require authors to register their clinical trials in a public database, a move that helps reviewers and the public assess medical data.

Also, at least one of journals, Bone Marrow Transplantation, does not automatically disclose to readers if its authors have a potential conflict of interest, according to the center. During the public-comment period, the center advocated that all journals on the list require registration of clinical trials and disclosure of conflicts of interest.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology, however, dismissed such criticisms. In a letter last year, a society official said the center’s two criteria were important but not the only measures of quality in a scientific journal. What’s more, he said, many journals were considering policies related to clinical trials and conflicts of interest, and it would be premature to bar such journals from the approved list.

[Lainie]

This development raises some interesting questions for us. Imagine if payments for osteopathic treatments were made on the basis of whether those treatments were supported by scientific evidence published in heavyweight peer-reviewed journals... Would you get paid?

[K Clifford]

The public are unable to distinguish good from bad when it comes to therapy.  And no other physical or manual therapy out there can scientifically validate their treatments either.  We would revert to the law of the unregulated therapy jungle - word of mouth would determine your income.