Trial reportBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2000
Sleeping with the enemy? A randomized controlled trial of a collaborative health authority/industry intervention to influence prescribing practice.
Trial report in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Are Financial Payments From the Pharmaceutical Industry Associated With Physician Prescribing? : A Systematic Review.Annals of internal medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Information from pharmaceutical companies and the quality, quantity, and cost of physicians' prescribing: a systematic review.PLoS medicine · 2010Pooled it
- Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2007Pooled it
- Appropriateness of gastric antisecretory therapy in hospital practice.Irish journal of medical scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo evaluate the effectiveness of a health authority/pharmaceutical company collaborative intervention to influence the choice of proton pump inhibitors
methodsRandomized controlled trial, with general practices forming the unit of allocation and analysis.
resultsConstructive working relationships were achieved with five of six pharmaceutical companies involved. One hundred and two out of 140 practitioners in intervention group practices received at least one visit from an industry representative. There were no reports of representatives operating outside their agreed remit. Prescribing in both the intervention and control group moved towards that recommended by the guidelines but there was no difference between the groups in either the proportion of prescriptions in line with the guidelines or the overall cost.
conclusionsHealth authorities can achieve professional working relationships with the pharmaceutical industry although no changes in practice attributable to the intervention are achieved. Further work is required to develop effective means to influence prescribing in line with independent guidelines especially in the context of the development of Primary Care Groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.