ArticleBMC public health2010
Quality of claims, references and the presentation of risk results in medical journal advertising: a comparative study in Australia, Malaysia and the United States.
Article in BMC public health, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Written drug promotion from pharmaceutical companies to general practitioners: adherence to regulations over two decades.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- Are popular books about diet and health written based on scientific evidence? A comparison of citations between the USA and Japan.Public health nutrition · 2023Article
- An investigation into the pharmaceutical advertising in Iranian medical journals.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2022Article
- Cross-sectional study of medical advertisements in a national general medical journal: evidence, cost, and safe use of advertised versus comparative drugs.Research integrity and peer review · 2021Article
- Medicines Information and the Regulation of the Promotion of Pharmaceuticals.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Unhealthy marketing of pharmaceutical products: An international public health concern.Journal of public health policy · 2016Article
- Article
- Differences in the volume of pharmaceutical advertisements between print general medical journals.PloS one · 2014Article
- Analysis of written advertising material distributed through community pharmacies in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.Pharmacy practice · 2013Article
- Misleading advertising for antidepressants in Sweden: a failure of pharmaceutical industry self-regulation.PloS one · 2013Article
- Medicines information provided by pharmaceutical representatives: a comparative study in Australia and Malaysia.BMC public health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundJournal advertising is used by pharmaceutical companies to disseminate medicine information to doctors. The quality of claims, references and the presentation of risk results in Australia and the US has been questioned in several studies. No recent evidence is available on the quality of claims, references and the presentation of risk results in journal advertising in Australia and the US and no Malaysian data have been published. The aim of this study was to compare the quality of claims, references and the presentation of risk results in journal advertising in these three countries.
methodsA consecutive sample of 85 unique advertisements from each country was selected from journal advertising published between January 2004 to December 2006. Claims, references and the presentation of risk results in medical journal advertising were compared between the three countries.
resultsLess than one-third of the claims were unambiguous claims (Australia, 30%, Malaysia 17%, US, 23%). In Malaysia significantly less unambiguous claims were provided than in Australia and the US (P < 0.001). However, the unambiguous claims were supported by more references than other claims (80%). Most evidence was obtained from at least one randomized controlled trial, a systematic review or meta-analysis (Australia, 84%, Malaysia, 81%, US, 76%) with journal articles being the most commonly cited references in all countries. Data on file were significantly more likely to be cited in the US (17%) than in Australia (2%) and Malaysia (4%) (P < 0.001). Advertisements that provided quantitative information reported risk results exclusively as a relative risk reduction.
conclusionsThe majority of claims were vague suggesting poor quality of claims in journal advertising in these three countries. Evidence from a randomized controlled trial, systematic review or meta- analysis was commonly cited to support claims. However, the more frequent use of data that have not been published and independently reviewed in the US compared to Australia and Malaysia raises questions on the quality of references in the US. The use of relative rather than absolute benefits may overemphasize the benefit of medicines which may leave doctors susceptible to misinterpreting information.
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.