In industry supported CME, researchers find little evidence of bias

Share this article:
Kawczak: Rational discussion needed in CME
Kawczak: Rational discussion needed in CME

Recent studies add something that has been lacking in the heated dialogue over commercially supported CME: data on perceived bias in the content.

Two studies, both appearing in Journal of Academic Medicine, examined the relationship between commercially supported CME and physician's opinions about bias, with neither finding much evidence for such a link. They follow a 2009 Medscape analysis that reached similar conclusions about Web-based CME.

Opinions on industry-supported CME are strongly held, and the issue has “caused people to take sides and vehemently debate the topic,” Steven Kawczak, associate director for the Cleveland Clinic's Center for Continuing Education (CCE), told MM&M. “We need to have a rational discussion.”

CCE researchers examining physician opinions of 197 industry backed courses—including live, enduring and online—delivered during 2007 found 97.3% to 99.2% of learners reported that their directly sponsored activity was “satisfactorily free from commercial bias.” Single-sponsor courses showed even lower perceptions of bias.

University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) researchers also found low rates of perceived bias for the vast majority of 213 live CME activities (sans single-source funded courses) delivered over a two-year period. The low ratings held constant across various degrees of industry support.

Compliance with ACCME's Standards for Commercial Support can minimize bias but, according to UCSF, cannot prevent all forms of commercial influence. Both groups' screening processes are more rigorous. Also, bias may have been too subtle for participants to have detected, especially given the small sample sizes.

The three recent studies represent only three providers in about 700, acknowledged Kawczak. Providers need to get more data out there, “so we can start looking at ways each of us manages CME.”

Share this article:
You must be a registered member of MMM to post a comment.

Email Newsletters

MM&M Future Leaders

Register now

Early bird $1,950 before 31 October 2014

*Group discounts available on request 


Patient access to pharmaceuticals is a tale of two worlds—affordability has improved for the majority, while the minority is hampered by cost, distribution and red tape. To provide marketers with a well-rounded perspective, MM&M presents this e-book chock full of key insights. Click here to access it.

More in Channel

Five things for pharma marketers to know: Monday, September 15

Five things for pharma marketers to know: ...

Pharma has sought 76 meetings with FDA over biosimilars; Gilead licenses Sovaldi to India generic drugmakers; Pfizer and Ranbaxy Lipitor lawsuit dismissed.

Liraglutide, aiming for new indication, gets new name

Liraglutide, aiming for new indication, gets new name

Why Novo Nordisk is choosing not to leverage Victoza's brand equity as it seeks a weight-loss indication for liraglutide.

Five things for pharma marketers to know: Friday, September 12

Five things for pharma marketers to know: Friday, ...

An FDA panel voted in favor of liraglutide for weight loss; Allergan investors backing an attempted takeover of the firm crossed a critical threshold; and 100 million health wearables are ...