But the new study, in Archives of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, questions whether some companies are living up to those standards.

Spiegel and his colleagues chose a sample of 50 claims from ads in four top ENT journals and sent them to five ENT doctors for review. The reviewers then compared the claims to the references listed in the ads.

The researchers found a third of the claims were supported by the referenced data. But 12 percent of the time, the data actually contradicted the claims.

When asked if the claims had enough backing to support treatment decisions, the answer was no 58 percent of the time.

Spiegel said that is problematic, because for a busy doctor one-line glossy ads are much easier to use than long scientific articles.

“The fact is that the scientific literature is copious and much of it is somewhat obscure,” he told Reuters Health.

WHAT’S AN AD?

Still, Rosenfeld said the new results were not clear-cut, because the five expert reviewers often couldn’t reach consensus on which claims held up.

“The fact that they can’t agree reflects the nature of what an ad is,” Rosenfeld said. “The problem is that we’re attempting to provide a level of precision to something that was never intended to be precise. Ads are intended to attract interest.”

The U.S. Drug and Food Administration told Reuters Health it regularly reviews the claims in promotional materials from drug and device makers and objects to claims it finds unsubstantiated.

But with tens of thousands of claims submitted to the FDA each year, Spiegel and his colleagues suggest the system might be overwhelmed - especially since there is no requirement for claims to be vetted before they’re published.