ReviewCNS drugs2004
Direct-to-consumer marketing of prescription drugs: a current perspective for neurologists and psychiatrists.
Review in CNS drugs, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Serotonin and depression: a disconnect between the advertisements and the scientific literature.PLoS medicine · 2005Review
- Interactions between physicians and pharmaceutical sales representatives in Saudi Arabia.Annals of Saudi medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the US and New Zealand, the past decade has seen tremendous growth in the marketing of prescription drugs directly to patients. The pharmaceutical industry has applied pressure in other countries to relax regulations governing such marketing although this has not yet been successful. While we still have much to learn about the potential impact on the public's health of direct-to-consumer (DTC) marketing, some data are available. This article summarises the current literature on the benefits and risks of DTC marketing. This marketing strategy has grown substantially in the US, but only select drugs are advertised. Whether there is net benefit or harm to the public's health as a result of DTC marketing depends critically on which drugs are advertised and the quality of the information provided in promotional material. Critical reviews of this promotional material suggest the information is of poor quality. Notably, 18% of the 50 drugs advertised most intensively in the US were medications used to treat psychiatric and neurological disorders. The impairments in decisional capacity often seen in psychiatric and neurological illness leave patients vunerable to the controlling influence of DTC marketing and, thus, undermine the patient autonomy that is said to be promoted by this marketing strategy. If there is any benefit from DTC marketing it is for significantly undertreated conditions. International restrictions on DTC marketing should remain in place until further evidence of net benefit or harm emerges from the DTC marketing experiment that is taking place in the US and New Zealand.
Indexed as
Identifiers
14728054What 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.