ArticleAtencion primaria2005
[The scientific information that the pharmaceutical industry provides to family doctors].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2005. 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.
- [The evaluation of the quality of pharmaceutical prescription].Atencion primaria · 2006Article
- [Critical reading of scientific articles that pharmaceutical industry offers to family doctors].Atencion primaria · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo check whether the information in the written publicity that the pharmaceutical industry gives to family doctors really is based on the scientific studies that support it.
designCross-sectional study.
settingHealth centre on the outskirts of a big city.
participantsOver a year, all the scientific studies that laboratory reps gave family doctors along with the advertising for medicines were collected. A total of 63 paired studies and advertising pieces were obtained. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: 1-3 advertising messages with each supporting study were selected and reviewed in a structured fashion. Then whether or not the messages selected were based on the study was appraised.
results44.5% of the advertising messages were not based on the accompanying study; 29.9% clearly were based on the study; and in the rest there was a half-and-half relationship. There was a significant relationship between the evaluation of the advertising messages and the kind of study, masking and the kind of result variable.
conclusionsA high proportion of advertising messages are not based on the study that is reputed to support them. A critique of these studies has to be undertaken before the advertising messages can be looked at.
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.