ArticlePLoS medicine2007
Characteristics and impact of drug detailing for gabapentin.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Information from pharmaceutical companies and the quality, quantity, and cost of physicians' prescribing: a systematic review.PLoS medicine · 2010Pooled it
- Industry Interactions at Medical Conferences: Representatives' Credentials and the Disclosure of Data Limitations Influence Clinician Perceptions.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2025Trial
- Money, Meals, and Marketing in Medicine: A 13-Year Follow-Up Survey of Physicians.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- What did the scientific literature learn from internal company documents in the pharmaceutical industry? A scoping review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2023Review
- Article
- Indications of newer and older anti-epileptic drug use: findings from a southern Italian general practice setting from 2005-2011.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2015Article
- Who has used internal company documents for biomedical and public health research and where did they find them?PloS one · 2014Article
- Sorrell v. IMS Health: issues and opportunities for informaticians.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2013Article
- Conflict of interest reporting by authors involved in promotion of off-label drug use: an analysis of journal disclosures.PLoS medicine · 2012Article
- Doctors' opinions of information provided by Libyan pharmaceutical company representatives.The Libyan journal of medicine · 2012Article
- A survey of pharmaceutical company representative interactions with doctors in Libya.The Libyan journal of medicine · 2012Article
- The imperative to share clinical study reports: recommendations from the Tamiflu experience.PLoS medicine · 2012Article
- Strategies and practices in off-label marketing of pharmaceuticals: a retrospective analysis of whistleblower complaints.PLoS medicine · 2011Article
- The inverse benefit law: how drug marketing undermines patient safety and public health.American journal of public health · 2011Article
- Prescribing pattern of anti-epileptic drugs in an Italian setting of elderly outpatients: a population-based study during 2004-07.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2010Article
- A survey of german physicians in private practice about contacts with pharmaceutical sales representatives.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2010Article
- Review
- Unbalanced reporting of benefits and harms in abstracts on rofecoxib.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2010Article
- The rise and fall of gabapentin for bipolar disorder: a case study on off-label pharmaceutical diffusion.Medical care · 2010Article
- Mandatory disclosure of pharmaceutical industry-funded events for health professionals.PLoS medicine · 2009Article
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
Abstract
backgroundSales visits by pharmaceutical representatives ("drug detailing") are common, but little is known about the content of these visits or about the impact of visit characteristics on prescribing behavior. In this study, we evaluated the content and impact of detail visits for gabapentin by analyzing market research forms completed by physicians after receiving a detail visit for this drug. METHODS AND
findingsMarket research forms that describe detail visits for gabapentin became available through litigation that alleged that gabapentin was promoted for "off-label" uses. Forms were available for 97 physicians reporting on 116 detail visits between 1995 and 1999. Three-quarters of recorded visits (91/116) occurred in 1996. Two-thirds of visits (72/107) were 5 minutes or less in duration, 65% (73/113) were rated of high informational value, and 39% (42/107) were accompanied by the delivery or promise of samples. During the period of this study, gabapentin was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration only for the adjunctive treatment of partial seizures, but in 38% of visits (44/115) the "main message" of the visit involved at least one off-label use. After receiving the detail visit, 46% (50/108) of physicians reported the intention to increase their prescribing or recommending of gabapentin in the future. In multivariable analysis, intent to increase future use or recommendation of gabapentin was associated with receiving the detail in a small group (versus one-on-one) setting and with low or absent baseline use of the drug, but not with other factors such as visit duration, discussion of "on-label" versus "off-label" content, and the perceived informational value of the presentation.
conclusionsDetail visits for gabapentin were of high perceived informational value and often involved messages about unapproved uses. Despite their short duration, detail visits were frequently followed by physician intentions to increase their future recommending or prescribing of the drug.
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.