Have investigators forgotten how to write?

Recently, I reviewed abstracts and presentations on topics of interest from the recent (virtual) meeting European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO). downloaded 10 describing results phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) breast genitourinary cancer. Independent quality or importance their results, was struck by two things: in 9 abstracts, list potential conflicts (COI) authors longer than abstract, which is restricted to ?350 words; 8 credited assistance medical writers. wondered if this frequent use writing a statistical aberration. therefore 16 other commercially sponsored RCTs same found that 12 them acknowledged assistance. Almost certainly occurs across meetings disciplines. Have we reached state 2020 where principal investigators important cannot write 350-word abstract? Of course, answer no. Rather, my observation implies are unwilling tell sponsors they should author abstract themselves. It likely those accepting will also accept sponsor undertakes primary preparation presented slides, paper report trial. Indeed, survey issues (July-October 2020) New England Journal Medicine (NEJM) indicated 21 reports (spanning all disciplines) either first draft generated writer described ‘writing assistance’. Kudos five groups who prepared own papers. My personal experience as lead an RCT castration-resistant prostate cancer included lengthy argument with when insisting prepare paper.1Tannock I.F. de Wit R. Berry W.R. et al.Docetaxel plus prednisone mitoxantrone advanced cancer.N Engl J Med. 2004; 351: 1502-1512Crossref PubMed Scopus (4688) Google Scholar Most writers have excellent skills, can improve written English, timeliness publication, adherence CONSORT reporting guidelines.2Evuarherhe O. Gattrell W. White al.Professional support quality, ethics clinical trial reporting: systematic review.Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019; 4: 14Crossref However, not usually experts reported topic, paid rather investigators. Is important? think it is. Multiple articles documented bias Cochrane Collaboration has ‘risk tool’ aid objective reporting.3Sterne J.A.C. Savovi? J. Page M.J. al.RoB 2: revised tool assessing risk randomised trials.Br Med 366: 14898Google The SPIIN investigated impact biased cancer, providing identified spin, comparable rewritten without blinded clinician observers then rated conclusions. For spin experimental treatment judged being more beneficial.4Boutron I. Altman D.G. Hopewell S. Vera-Badillo F. Tannock Ravaud P. Impact field cancer: trial.J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32: 4120-4126Crossref (215) There evidence commercial sponsorship,5Lundh A. Sismondo Lexchin Busuioc O.A. Bero L. Industry sponsorship research outcome.Cochrane Database Syst 2012; 12: MR000033Crossref (734) but am unaware data whether depends wrote report. investigator named accountable. By themselves increase probability free bias. drugs developed pharmaceutical companies, wish patient outcomes, participate might change practice, must work companies. be designed, conducted, analyzed All natural wanting show positive remain independent possible. funds leads financial COI.6Bariani G.M. Celis Ferrari A.C. Hoff P.M. al.Self-reported authors, sponsorship, interpretation editorials related oncology.J 2013; 31: 2289-2295Crossref (33) Having company personnel, contracted sponsor, drafts papers presentations, gives added impression subservient relationship similar shown Figure 1. If college students submit essays bearing name largely others, expelled. Claiming authorship others does seem very different: message our community sending trainees constitutes double standard. need so. many there shared whereby develop protocol partnership company. During progress decisions made management committee whose membership includes optimally majority investigators, additional oversight monitoring committee, mandated large RCTs. Primary presentation undertaken justly claim right comment such reports, offer suggestions modify them, initial final about form content belong investigator(s). NEJM Lancet deserve credit including sections entitled ‘Trial Oversight’ ‘Role Sponsor’ include statements draft. Other journals variable requirements acknowledging (or not) As COI, require disclose While editorial policies encourage open disclosure, provide tacit approval listed generators Just disclosure COI prevent COI,7Loewenstein G. Sah Cain D.M. unintended consequences conflict disclosure.J Am Assoc. 307: 669-670Crossref (173) manner most favorable sponsors. International Committee Editors (ICMJE) established indicate contribution falls within criteria deemed deserving authorship. One four key ‘Drafting revising critically intellectual content’. A logical extension would ‘or’ ‘and’ senior author, i.e. manuscript. duty physicians ensure volunteer patients held highest scientific ethical standards. Investigators: please your . thank Drs Christopher Booth Rosemary reading earlier essay helpful suggestions.