{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012422360248447204, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0026619343389529724, 'mean_word_length': 5.635294117647059, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Practice patterns of US neurologists in patients with SPMS and PPMS: A consensus study.

Conflict of interest and disclosure policies remain an important and difficult topic for journals. Companion surveys describing practice patterns of US neurologists with regard to treatment choices in patients with various forms of multiple sclerosis recently published in Neurology: Clinical Practice highlight this issue.1,2 Is a disclosure declaration sufficient to permit publication of studies that are sponsored entirely by pharmaceutical companies or do journals have an editorial responsibility to reject such articles? The disclosure statement regarding study funding for these 2 articles revealed that Biogen Idec "convened a steering committee to develop the contents of this article and paid committee members for their participation." This raises the question of why Biogen Idec selected these particular neurologists to be the steering committee. The authors reveal that the company reviewed drafts of the manuscript and had input into the development of the surveys, the manuscript, and provided feedback on the manuscript.