Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10344903›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics1998

Mega-mergers in the pharmaceutical industry. In whose interests?

A L Po

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

A L PoCentre for Evidence-Based Pharmacotherapy, University of Nottingham, England. Pazlwp@pan1.pharm.nottingham.ac.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Companies merge to achieve economies of scale. In an industry such as the pharmaceutical industry which relies on a high level of investment in research and development, such mergers appear rational. However, it is not at all obvious that a higher level of investment by a smaller number of firms will necessarily lead to an increased rate of genuine innovations. There is a risk that conflicts of interest and the pursuit of short term gains may encourage more mergers than is optimal for the industry. The impact of mega-mergers in the pharmaceutical industry on research output, employees, shareholders, financial advisers, managers and patients is discussed. A healthy pharmaceutical industry, able to invest the necessary resources in the development of innovative medicines is in the interest of patients and shareholders alike. Over-concentration may interfere with innovative activity and lead to monopolistic power. Close scrutiny of merger activity is important but in a deregulated world, governments may have little power to act. In any case, a drug-specific monopolistic industry may be beneficial to some countries which may therefore be reluctant to act in the interest of the world as a single community in search of more effective medicines.

Indexed as

Drug CostsEconomics, PharmaceuticalHealth ExpendituresDrug IndustryEuropeHumansJapanPatientsPharmaceutical PreparationsResearchUnited KingdomUnited StatesPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.