1. Any reason not to retract?
2. Do the authors of these guidelines are willing to defend publicly their methods used to collect and analyze data (i.e., evidence) concerning the safety and effectiveness of antidepressant drugs?*
3. Which companies are paying for the marketing prose written in these clinical practice guidelines?
– If you are a doctor or a university professor currently working in Colombia:
Do you even know that you could be also an author of any of the CINETS & IETS guidelines (without knowing it)?
It’s not a joke. I only knew that I was an author of the coronary disease practice guideline 5 months after their publication — It was an awful surprise to see my name in such a poor-quality document. I asked for the withdraw of my name in the author’s list of the guideline: No response.
– About ghostwriting: (1) It’s common; (2) It’s current; (3) It’s ‘under-diagnosed’; (4) It’s under-reported; (5) Usually nothing happens: absolute lack of accountability is the rule rather than the exception.
Ghostwriting infects practice guidelines, clinical trials, meta-analysis, and many other types of documents in the medical literature. This is unnerving because medical treatments are being promoted by pharmaceutical companies in official medical practice guidelines. The medical literature has been seriously infected by pharmaceutical marketing campaigns.