Best Practices

MPIP has developed several publications highlighting “best practices” gathered from our research and ongoing dialogue with medical journal editors, industry experts, authors, and other interested parties regarding ways to continue to improve transparency in reporting the results of industry-sponsored research.

MPIP is actively involved in ongoing research to develop new best practices:

  • MPIP survey benchmarked medical journal editor perceptions regarding change in transparency and credibility of industry-sponsored clinical trial publications in the past 5 years (2010 to 2015).
  • Top-line findings were presented at ISMPP 2016.

View Abstract

Adverse Event Reporting provides guidance on clinically relevant and more informative adverse event reporting to improve patient care and increase the credibility of industry-sponsored publications.

We conducted qualitative research among interested parties involved in reporting adverse events in clinical trial publications to identify key areas for improvement and collaborated with journal editors and industry experts to codify best practice recommendations to facilitate clinically meaningful adverse event reporting in clinical trial publications to complement the CONSORT Harms Extension.

More than 5,000 views since publication!

Additional Information

Recommendations to Improve Adverse Event Reporting in Clinical Trial Publications: A Joint Pharmaceutical Industry/Journal Editor Perspective. Lineberry N, Berlin JA, Mansi B, et al. BMJ. 2016;355:i5078.

Learn More

Five-Step Authorship Framework facilitates more transparent authorship decisions and helps readers better assess the credibility of results and the perspectives of the authors for medical research.

In collaboration with academic researchers, we conducted a novel attitude study to identify ambiguities in authorship disclosures encountered in industry-sponsored publications not well addressed by current guidelines. Results from the study, which included close to 500 clinical investigators, journal editors, publication professionals, and medical writers, led to the development of a standardized approach to facilitate transparent and consistent authorship decision making.

Additional Information

Five-Step Authorship Framework to Improve Transparency in Disclosing Contributors to Industry-Sponsored Clinical Trial Publications. Marušić A, Hren D, Mansi B, et al. BMC Med. 2014;12:197.

Learn More

Ten Recommendations for Closing the Credibility Gap is a call to action for all stakeholders—authors, journal editors, research sponsors, and others—to enhance the quality and transparency of industry-sponsored clinical research reporting.

We characterized the persistent and perceived credibility gap in reporting the results of industry-sponsored research and identified approaches to close the gap in our seminal recommendations stemming from our 2010 journal editor–pharma roundtable.

Additional Information

Ten Recommendations for Closing the Credibility Gap in Reporting Industry-Sponsored Clinical Research: A Joint Journal and Pharmaceutical Industry Perspective. Mansi BA, Clark J, David FS, et al. Mayo Clinic Proc. 2012;87(5):424-429.

Learn More

Authors’ Submission Toolkit shows authors how they can help raise standards and increase efficiency in publishing industry-sponsored studies.

We developed a compilation of best practices for manuscript preparation and submission, aimed at industry-sponsored clinical trials, as a result of our unique collaboration with journal editors during our 2009 journal–pharma roundtable in Vancouver, British Columbia.

More than 48,000 views since publication.

Additional Information

Authors’ Submission Toolkit: A Practical Guide to Getting Your Research Published. Chipperfield L, Citrome L, Clark J, et al. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010;26(8):1967-1982.

Learn More


Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Copyright © 2016 MPIP. All Rights Reserved.