ArticlePLoS medicine2009
Mandatory disclosure of pharmaceutical industry-funded events for health professionals.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pharmaceutical policies: effects of policies regulating drug marketing.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and the practice, knowledge and beliefs of medical oncologists and clinical haematologists: a systematic review.British journal of cancer · 2022Pooled it
- International comparison of pharmaceutical industry payment disclosures in the UK and Japan: implications for self-regulation, public regulation, and transparency.Globalization and health · 2023Article
- A hidden web of policy influence: The pharmaceutical industry's engagement with UK's All-Party Parliamentary Groups.PloS one · 2021Article
- A comparison of educational events for physicians and nurses in Australia sponsored by opioid manufacturers.PloS one · 2021Article
- Pharmaceutical company payments to dermatology Clinical Practice Guideline authors in Japan.PloS one · 2020Article
- Medicines Information and the Regulation of the Promotion of Pharmaceuticals.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Evaluation of Pharmaceutical Company Payments and Conflict of Interest Disclosures Among Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Authors in Japan.JAMA network open · 2019Article
- Changes in the type and amount of spending disclosed by Australian pharmaceutical companies: an observational study.BMJ open · 2019Observational
- Article
- Article
- Antibiotic distribution channels in Thailand: results of key-informant interviews, reviews of drug regulations and database searches.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2018Review
- 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 cross-sectional analysis of pharmaceutical industry-funded events for health professionals in Australia.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Proliferation of gynaecological scientific societies and their financial transparency: an Italian survey.BMJ open · 2016Article
- Article
- Doctors and drug companies: still cozy after all these years.PLoS medicine · 2010Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.