Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeArticle erroneously suggests that Financial Ties worse in DSM-5
Posted by MichaelbfirstMD on 14 Mar 2012 at 05:35 GMT
While this article correctly reports that the percentage of DSM-5 panelists with reported ties to industry is greater than for those who developed DSM-IV, it erroneously implies that the situation with regard to possible influence of industry on the DSM developmental process has gotten worse since DSM-IV. Although it mentions the fact that DSM-5 implemented for each DSM-5 participant a new requirement for a $10,000 per year limit from all industry sources, it does so only in passing in the section on continuing "gaps" in the DSM-5 COI policy. This is a huge change from DSM-IV; not only did DSM-IV not require reporting of financial ties, but there were also no limits imposed; as has been reported in the past, some DSM-IV experts and advisors received sums exceeding $100,000 per year from industry. Common sense suggests that the risk of industry influence is proportional to the amount of money involved. While DSM-5 has not completely elminiated industry ties, its imposition of a $10,000 per year limit greatly reduces the potential for financial considerations to have any influence on decision making, since the incentives to do so are greatly reduced.