ArticleCulture, medicine and psychiatry2006
Manufacturing consensus.
Article in Culture, medicine and psychiatry, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Regulating the relationship between physicians and pharmaceutical companies: a qualitative and descriptive analysis of the impact of Israeli legislation.Israel journal of health policy research · 2017Article
- A Matter of Taste? Quality of Life in Day-to-Day Living with ALS and a Feeding Tube.Culture, medicine and psychiatry · 2016Observational
- The social and cultural construction of psychiatric knowledge: an analysis of NICE guidelines on depression and ADHD.Anthropology & medicine · 2013Article
- Knowledge of ghostwriting and financial conflicts-of-interest reduces the perceived credibility of biomedical research.BMC research notes · 2011Article
- Antidepressant-induced akathisia-related homicides associated with diminishing mutations in metabolizing genes of the CYP450 family.Pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine · 2011Article
- Getting to yes: corporate power and the creation of a psychopharmaceutical blockbuster.Culture, medicine and psychiatry · 2009Article
- Our censored journals.Mens sana monographs · 2008Article
- One flew over the conflict of interest nest.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2007Article
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
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declared that it would be illegal to advertise as or in any way claim your drug to be superior to competitors on the market, which are up to 30 times cheaper. How does a pharmaceutical company market such a product? The answer is to enlist academics to form expert panels to construct guidelines and algorithms, or participate in Delphi panels and other exercises, which can be expected to prove that newer, more costly drugs produce cost savings. These academics do so on the basis of the existing clinical trial evidence--which supposedly the FDA has used to come to its verdict that the newer compound is no better than its competitors. However, where the FDA has seen the raw data, academics later see the published data. In between intervenes a medical writing exercise, which produces the first and most important piece of advertising for any pharmaceutical product--the randomized controlled trial infomercial. This paper explores how pharmaceutical companies manufacture an apparent academic consensus and, in so doing, gives a case study of the recent controversies surrounding the marketing of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) drugs for adolescent depression.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16804639What 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.