Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12457428›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2002

The role of marketing in pharmaceutical research and development.

John E Calfee

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Off-label drug information: regulation, distribution, evaluation, and related controversies.P & T : a peer-reviewed journal for formulary management · 2009
    Article
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.

John E CalfeeAmerican Enterprise Institute, Washington, USA. calfeej@aei.org

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pharmaceutical marketing, which is primarily targeted at physicians, has been criticised because it may distort physician prescribing and thus potentially raise costs and/or worsen health. An alternative view, presented in this paper, is that successful marketing of pharmaceuticals can improve consumer welfare by increasing incentives for research and development (R&D) investment and by providing guidance to R&D to make it more consistent with consumer preferences. There are a number of arguments that support this view, despite impediments to pharmaceutical marketing such as the prohibited dissemination of off-label information in the US, difficulties in estimating potential pharmaceutical demand, and the long time lag between demand assessment and the introduction of new drugs. For example, physicians are often slow to modify their prescribing practices, even when new evidence-based practice guidelines are issued by prestigious organisations. Pharmaceutical promotion is likely to be particularly valuable because information plays a key role, is highly technical, and can change rapidly. Even consumer advertising can potentially improve health, for example, by improving patient compliance with drug therapy. In addition to disseminating information about the benefits of new therapies, an essential (and perhaps unique) role for pharmaceutical promotion is to encourage physicians and payers to pay closer attention to consumer needs (i.e. willingness to pay) for new medical technology. Moreover, successful marketing of pharmaceuticals increases the returns from R&D, thus increasing incentives to explore consumer demand and to contribute to basic research on the role of drug therapy. Consumer benefits from this process may be very large.

Indexed as

MarketingAdvertisingConsumer BehaviorDrug IndustryDrug UtilizationPharmaceutical PreparationsPractice Patterns, Physicians'ResearchPharmaceutical 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.