ArticlePharmacy world & science : PWS2007
Information provided by generic and brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturers in response to a request.
Article in Pharmacy world & science : PWS, 2007. 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.
- Differences in the information about procedures after cold chain disruption provided by pharmaceutical industry to hospital and community pharmacies.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo assess the medical information provided by manufacturers in response to a specific request, and to compare the responses between generic and brand-name companies.
settingCommunity pharmacy in Spain.
methodA systematic request for product monographs was made between 1999 and 2002 to manufacturers registering new medicines in Spain. A standardised letter was sent to the medical affairs departments. If there was no reply after 3 months, a second standardised letter was sent requesting the monograph. Blood derivatives, intravenous medicines, and radiological contrast agents were excluded.
main outcome measuresThe delay that occurred in receiving information and the type of material sent in response to the request was compared between the two types of companies.
resultsAbout of 833 medicines from 185 manufacturers were registered during the time period studied. After applying exclusion criteria, 805 medicines, including 419 (52.0%) generic and 386 (48.0%) brand-name products, were analyzed. No replies were received for 242 (30.0%) requests 183 (43.7%) generics and 59 (15.3%) brand-names; P < 0.005). We received 369 (65.5% of 533) replies after the first request: 140 of 236 (59.3%) generics and 229 of 327 (70.0%) brand-names (P = 0.009). The average response delay was 9.7 days [CI95%: 8.65-10.68]. There was a statistically significant difference between generic and brand-name companies after the first request (P = 0.001), but not after the second request (P = 0.312).
conclusionBrand-name manufacturers reply more often, more quickly, and with better quality information than generic manufacturers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17464571What 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.