The deluge of unsubscribed medical oncology information

Abstract

6106 Background: The volume of unsubscribed, unsolicited medical oncology information being distributed to oncologists is rapidly increasing. We assessed this increasing influx of information in regards to volume, medium, sponsorship and peer review and compared it to the volume of subscribed/requested medical information. Methods: All mail, faxes and emails sent to this oncologist (DMM) in a single month (July 2004) were collected, reviewed, and compared to the volume of the standard journals to which we subscribed. Results: During one month, we received 205 separate unsolicited communications. The material measured 12“ high and weighed 14#s. It included 10 peer reviewed journals (640 pages), 7 newspapers (621 pages), 18 non-peer reviewed publications such as monographs, case reports and symposia proceedings (261 pages), 12 audio CDs/DVDs, 23 emails, and 55 invitations to medical meetings. Nearly all of this material was sponsored either directly or indirectly by the pharmaceutical industry. This volume of material was approximately 20 times the pages of subscribed medical information (which included eg, JCO, NEJM, AIM, Blood). Conclusions: Oncologists are inundated with medical info from the pharmaceutical industry, with its potential bias, that can overwhelm standard peer-reviewed, requested journals by many fold. While much of this info is useful, well written by experts, and peer-reviewed, it seems that the separation between classical peer-reviewed materials and advertising/marketing is no longer distinct, but rather appears to be an intentionally blurred, seamless continuum. Oncologists need to be cautious in assessing the source and objectivity of this overwhelming influx of information and in preventing it from distracting them from classical peer-reviewed literature. No significant financial relationships to disclose.