ArticleArchives of internal medicine2011
Study of neurontin: titrate to effect, profile of safety (STEPS) trial: a narrative account of a gabapentin seeding trial.
Article in Archives of internal medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Conduct and reporting of formula milk trials: systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Pooled it
- Article
- What did the scientific literature learn from internal company documents in the pharmaceutical industry? A scoping review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2023Review
- Impact of physicians' participation in non-interventional post-marketing studies on their prescription habits: A retrospective 2-armed cohort study in Germany.PLoS medicine · 2020Article
- Peer review in the reporting of clinical trials inArthroplasty today · 2019Article
- Seeding trials: Marketing gimmick or credible scientific research.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2019Article
- Payments by US pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to US medical journal editors: retrospective observational study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2017Observational
- Article
- Contribution of industry funded post-marketing studies to drug safety: survey of notifications submitted to regulatory agencies.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2017Article
- Characterisation of trials where marketing purposes have been influential in study design: a descriptive study.Trials · 2016Article
- How to make more published research true.PLoS medicine · 2014Article
- Relationships between physicians and Pharma: Why physicians should not accept money from the pharmaceutical industry.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2014Article
- Article
- Article
- Promoting transparency in pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research.American journal of public health · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSeeding trials, clinical studies conducted by pharmaceutical companies for marketing purposes, have rarely been described in detail.
methodsWe examined all documents relating to the clinical trial Study of Neurontin: Titrate to Effect, Profile of Safety (STEPS) produced during the Neurontin marketing, sales practices, and product liability litigation, including company internal and external correspondence, reports, and presentations, as well as depositions elicited in legal proceedings of Harden Manufacturing vs Pfizer and Franklin vs Warner-Lambert, most which were created between 1990 and 2009. Using a systematic search strategy, we identified and reviewed all documents related to the STEPS trial in order to identify key themes related to the trial's conduct and determine the extent of marketing involvement in its planning and implementation.
resultsDocuments demonstrated that STEPS was a seeding trial posing as a legitimate scientific study. Documents consistently described the trial itself, not trial results, to be a marketing tactic in the company's marketing plans. Documents demonstrated that at least 2 external sources questioned the validity of the study before execution, and that data quality during the study was often compromised. Furthermore, documents described company analyses examining the impact of participating as a STEPS investigator on rates and dosages of gabapentin prescribing, finding a positive association. None of these findings were reported in 2 published articles.
conclusionThe STEPS trial was a seeding trial, used to promote gabapentin and increase prescribing among investigators, and marketing was extensively involved in its planning and implementation.
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.