ReviewPharmacoEconomics1995
Relationships between sponsors and investigators in pharmacoeconomic and clinical research.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost effectiveness of recombinant human insulin-like growth factor I therapy in patients with ALS.PharmacoEconomics · 1999Trial
- Management of sacroiliac joint disruption and degenerative sacroiliitis with nonoperative care is medical resource-intensive and costly in a United States commercial payer population.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2014Article
- Comparison of the costs of nonoperative care to minimally invasive surgery for sacroiliac joint disruption and degenerative sacroiliitis in a United States commercial payer population: potential economic implications of a new minimally invasive technology.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2014Article
- Comparison of the costs of nonoperative care to minimally invasive surgery for sacroiliac joint disruption and degenerative sacroiliitis in a United States Medicare population: potential economic implications of a new minimally-invasive technology.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2013Article
- Conflict of interest in industry-sponsored economic evaluations: real or imagined?Current oncology reports · 2001Review
- A reappraisal of economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Science or marketing?PharmacoEconomics · 1998Article
- Why training is the key to successful guideline implementation.PharmacoEconomics · 1997Review
- A strategy for collecting pharmacoeconomic data during phase II/III clinical trials.PharmacoEconomics · 1996Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Potential conflict between the goals of the investigators and the sponsors of pharmacoeconomic and clinical research has been well documented. Although there have been efforts to formalise relationships between sponsors and investigators in some areas of clinical research, no set of guidelines or standardised contract to govern pharmacoeconomic research relationships is currently in use. In this paper, we discuss a number of provisions that should be included in a sponsored research agreement to define the responsibilities and clarify the rights of the parties in the collaborative research relationship. We also present an example of a sponsored research agreement that we have designed as a model formal contract between sponsors and investigators. The most salient areas in the research agreement include: publication, specification of analysis, data access/ownership, confidentiality, termination and payment to investigators. While this paper focuses on pharmacoeconomic research, many of the principles have relevance to a broader range of research relationships and to other clinical economics and clinical trials research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
10155310What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.