Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Since submitting our letter [1] we have realised we failed to spot,
and indeed repeated, an important error contained in Bob Roehr's news
story (paragraph 8) [2]. We apologise for this mistake.
It is not the case that 'most doctors (83%) believed that industry
support should be eliminated from CME' [1, 2]. Rather, Tabas and
colleagues [3] found '208 of 370 (56%) agreed or strongly agreed that
commercial support is essential for accredited CME and should not be
eliminated' (this proportion, when added to the physicians who were
neutral makes 83%).
Whilst the challenge is greater than we previously thought, there are
many encouraging findings in Tabas' study. For example, 86% of physicians
agreed there was 'moderate of large potential for bias' in educational
events 100% funded by a single industry sponsor [3]. This is a starting
point.
We continue to believe change in the funding of CME is both possible
and essential.
1. Yates TA, Parks T. Time for optimism. BMJ 2011; 342: d3351.
2. Roehr B. US doctors are unwilling to pay more to abolish industry
funded CME. BMJ
2011; 342: d2948.
3. Tabas JA, Boscardin C, Jacobsen DM, Steinman MA, Volberding PA, Baron
RB. Clinician
attitudes about commercial support of continuing medical education. Arch
Intern Med
2011; 171: 840-6.
Competing interests:
No competing interests
04 June 2011
Tom A. Yates
Academic Foundation Year 2 Doctor
Tom Parks, Academic Foundation Year 2 Doctor, Oxford University Clinical Academic Graduate School
Oxford University Clinical Academic Graduate School, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK
Correction
Since submitting our letter [1] we have realised we failed to spot,
and indeed repeated, an important error contained in Bob Roehr's news
story (paragraph 8) [2]. We apologise for this mistake.
It is not the case that 'most doctors (83%) believed that industry
support should be eliminated from CME' [1, 2]. Rather, Tabas and
colleagues [3] found '208 of 370 (56%) agreed or strongly agreed that
commercial support is essential for accredited CME and should not be
eliminated' (this proportion, when added to the physicians who were
neutral makes 83%).
Whilst the challenge is greater than we previously thought, there are
many encouraging findings in Tabas' study. For example, 86% of physicians
agreed there was 'moderate of large potential for bias' in educational
events 100% funded by a single industry sponsor [3]. This is a starting
point.
We continue to believe change in the funding of CME is both possible
and essential.
1. Yates TA, Parks T. Time for optimism. BMJ 2011; 342: d3351.
2. Roehr B. US doctors are unwilling to pay more to abolish industry
funded CME. BMJ
2011; 342: d2948.
3. Tabas JA, Boscardin C, Jacobsen DM, Steinman MA, Volberding PA, Baron
RB. Clinician
attitudes about commercial support of continuing medical education. Arch
Intern Med
2011; 171: 840-6.
Competing interests: No competing interests