Correspondence

Inadvertent Placement of an Advertisement

N Engl J Med 1993; 329:1661-1662November 25, 1993

Article

To the Editor:

An advertisement caught my eye in the September 30 issue of the Journal. The advertisement was for a home glucose monitor. Surprisingly, it was on the page facing the lead article concerning the very encouraging results of “tight” glycemic control in delaying the development of complications of diabetes mellitus.1 Was this an amazing coincidence, or the result of careful planning and cooperation between the Journal and the equipment manufacturer? A more fortuitous placement seems unimaginable for this product's advertisement. Furthermore, the advertisement refers to “tighter control” as “the news of the decade,” implying a connection with the final publication of these long-awaited study results. I reviewed all the advertisements in the previous 26 issues (six months) of the Journal and did not find one advertisement for this glucose monitoring device.

The issue of whether the placement of this advertisement resulted from an agreement between the editor or publisher and the manufacturer is an important one. The Journal has an important role in shaping national health care policy. It would seem highly improper for it to link advertisements with related scientific articles. Such a practice could be interpreted as product endorsement, despite the Journal's stated policy to the contrary. Shouldn't the Journal actively prevent such coincidences from occurring in the future and thus avoid even the appearance of impropriety?

Peter A. Merkel, M.D.
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114

1 References

1. 1

   The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1993;329:977-986
   Full Text | Web of Science | Medline

Author/Editor Response

Editor's Reply: I want to reassure Dr. Merkel emphatically that we were not in collusion in any way with the manufacturer of the home glucose monitor. The placement of the advertisement opposite the lead article on the treatment of diabetes mellitus was an unfortunate error. The facts are these: The person in the Editorial Offices responsible each week for checking the advertisement facing the lead article and preventing such occurrences simply failed to make the connection between the glucose monitoring system and the study. A new procedure subsequently introduced will eliminate the possibility of such an error in the future.

I do not know how the manufacturer of the test learned when the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial would be published, but the date of publication is on all galley proofs and could have been passed on by anyone who had access to the galleys of that article. The manufacturer did not receive that information from anyone on the staff of the Journal.

Jerome P. Kassirer, M.D.