ArticleIndian journal of pharmacology2010
Evaluation of rationality of promotional drug literature using World Health Organization guidelines.
Article in Indian journal of pharmacology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- Pharmaceutical brochures in Lebanon: do they meet WHO recommendations?BMC primary care · 2022Article
- Article
- Critical Evaluation of Drug Advertisements in a Medical College in Lalitpur, Nepal.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2020Article
- Decoding the Roadmap for Capacity Building of Pharmacology Academicians in Catering to Drug Information Center Services in a Developing Country.The Journal of pharmacy technology : jPT : official publication of the Association of Pharmacy Technicians · 2019Article
- Critical evaluation of the validity of drug promotion materials in Ethiopia.Drug, healthcare and patient safety · 2019Article
- Risk factors for potentially inappropriate prescribing to older patients in primary care.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Article
- A Critical Analysis of Claims and Their Authenticity in Indian Drug Promotional Advertisements.Advances in medicine · 2015Article
- Analysis of written advertising material distributed through community pharmacies in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.Pharmacy practice · 2013Article
- Drug advertisements published in Indian Medical Journals: Are they ethical?Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2011Article
- A study of perceptions and exposure of drug promotional literature among clinicians in a teaching hospital.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
- Critical review of drug promotional literature using the World Health Organization guidelines.Journal of research in pharmacy practiceArticle
- Evaluating the reliability and accuracy of the promotional brochures for the generic pharmaceutical companies in Iraq using World Health Organization guidelines.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciencesArticle
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
objectivesThe study was aimed to evaluate collected drug promotional brochures for accuracy, consistency, and validity of the information presented in it, using World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for ethical medicinal drug promotion. Drug promotional brochures were evaluated for the type of claims and pictorial content presented in it and for references cited in support of these claims. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis observational, cross-sectional study was conducted in the outpatient department of Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur, India. In addition to the fulfillment of "WHO criteria, 1988," we examined 513 promotional brochures for the type of claims and pictorial content presented in it and references quoted in support of claims to check their retrievability, type, and authenticity.
resultsNone of the promotional literature fulfilled all WHO criteria. Majority (92%) brochures claimed about the efficacy of product, and a few about safety (37.8%). Out of 1003 references given in support of various claims, 84.4% were from journals and only 28.5% were validly presented researches. Brochures presenting irrelevant pictures were 41.3%, whereas brief prescription information (BPI) of the promoted drug was given only by 8.8% brochures.
conclusionPharmaceutical industries did not follow the WHO guidelines while promoting their products, thus aiming to satisfying their commercial motive rather than fulfill the educational aspect of promotion.
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.