Letters
Ethics
Volume 189 - Issue 3

Misleading advertising of PI-based drug information?

Author:  Lilon G Bandler

Med J Aust 2008; 189 (3): 181. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2008.tb01966.x
Published online: 4 August 2008
Download PDF (580 KB)
Share: Share on Blue Sky Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share by email

To the Editor: I challenge the assertion made by Donohoo (Managing Editor of MIMS [the Monthly Index of Medical Specialities]) that “MIMS is held . . . in high regard” and that the “vast majority of MIMS subscribers recognise that the quality information provided by MIMS is essential in their daily encounters with their patients”.1

In fact, the most common MIMS annual to be seen around hospitals, in nursing homes and in doctors’ surgeries is an out-of-date one. Furthermore, as a general practitioner, when I do use MIMS, it is because it is packaged with our desktop software, rather than by choice or active decision.

I have online access to the Australian medicines handbook (http://www.amh.net.au/), and various other references. I have no need to refer to MIMS, and I tire of the understandable bias MIMS has always had for proprietary prescribing.

Author

  • Lilon G Bandler1
  • 1. Sydney, NSW.

Correspondence: lbandler@med.usyd.edu.au

References

View this article on Wiley Online Library

More like this

View more