Citation: Veitch E (2005) Editor's Reply. PLoS Med 2(12): e423. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020423
Published: December 27, 2005
Copyright: © 2005 Emma Veitch. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Competing interests: EV is Publications Manager for PLoS Clinical Trials.
Erick Turner appropriately points out the high levels of rigor applied during regulatory authorities' review of clinical trial data . However, the statement beginning “However, it is difficult to have confidence in data released by sponsors…”  was not intended to highlight the release of review documents by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but rather the publication of summary clinical trial data on sponsors' own Web sites, which does seem to lack an integral peer-review mechanism. I support efforts to make Drugs@FDA more systematic and comprehensive, an initiative which can sit comfortably alongside peer-reviewed journal publication.
- 1. Turner E (2005) Correction/clarification about FDA review documents. PLoS Med 2(12): e422.E. TurnerCorrection/clarification about FDA review documents.PLoS Med2005212e422
- 2. Veitch E, the PLoS Medicine Editors (2005) Tackling publication bias in clinical trial reporting. PLoS Med 2: e367.E. Veitchthe PLoS Medicine EditorsTackling publication bias in clinical trial reporting.PLoS Med20052e367