Industry and clinical practice: a delicate balance

Issue: August 2005

ByMichael D. DePaolis, OD, FAAO

Michael D. DePaolis, OD, FAAO [photo]
Michael D. DePaolis

Political leanings aside, it is often said that optometrists are a pretty conservative group. This is especially true with respect to patient care. We generally adhere to time-honored clinical care protocols while exercising prudence in adopting new technologies. As clinicians and visual scientists, our actions are dictated by what’s best for our patients.

Adhering to this credo, however, is not so easy. It requires vigilance in assessing treatment outcomes, refining practice guidelines and a lifelong commitment to learning. Throughout our careers we learn via many venues: individual patient experiences, continuing education courses, collegial conversations and professional publications. While each venue is valuable in its own way, it can be difficult to separate the facts from the fiction. In short, we must develop some sort of internal “filter” – a mechanism by which to edit, validate and prioritize the information at hand.

Publishing disclosures

For example, we’ve all had the experience of reading an article authored by a well-respected colleague. The subject is interesting and relevant, the clinical data is impressive and the author’s opinion is very favorable. However, as you finish the article, you can’t help but notice the closing disclaimer that acknowledges the author’s financial relationship with the technology in question. While we recognize the author as an individual of high intellect, integrity and ethics, the article is suddenly viewed in a slightly different light.

As an optometrist, I struggle with this scenario in much the same way as many of you do. As an editor, it has even larger implications. It is our primary mission as a publication to be a valuable and reliable source of information for our readers. It is our job to ensure accuracy and balance, which, at times is not an easy job.

The reality is that it’s impossible to conduct research and product development in a vacuum. Corporations recognize that optometric educators and clinical consultants are essential to their research, assuring product development that is meaningful to practitioners and the public they serve.

While the relationship between industry and optometry is a healthy, productive and essential one, there must be an implicit understanding. For instance, while it’s acceptable for industry to solicit the opinion of a clinical researcher, it’s unacceptable to dictate that opinion. Likewise, it’s imperative that clinical researchers provide colleagues with contemporary information in a factual and balanced manner. As an industry, we recognize the importance of this strategic imperative, as is evidenced by the increasingly visible role that PhRMA guidelines play.

At Primary Care Optometry News we recognize the importance of industry’s relationship with optometry. We believe that this relationship is essential for new product development and improved patient care. We also understand that it’s our responsibility to report these developments in an accurate, objective and balanced fashion. It is a goal that we strive for on a daily basis.

While we have a series of checks and balances – contributor disclosure statements and professional editorial board and industry council review – we still rely on our readership. After all, it is collegial commentaries and letters to the editor that serve as the ultimate peer review. We are, indeed, grateful for your contributions and for your readership.