ArticlePLoS medicine2012
United States private-sector physicians and pharmaceutical contract research: a qualitative study.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Can research integrity prevail in the market? Lessons from commissioned research organizations.Accountability in research · 2022Article
- Engaging African ancestry participants in SLE clinical trials.Lupus science & medicine · 2018Article
- Pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers: Going beyond the gift - An explorative review.PloS one · 2018Review
- Financial ties of principal investigators and randomized controlled trial outcomes: cross sectional study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2017Article
- The potential exploitation of research participants in high income countries who lack access to health care.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Review
- Exploring the Potential for Moral Hazard When Clinical Trial Research is Conducted in Rural Communities: Do Traditional Ethics Concepts Apply?HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2015Article
- Feasibility study of clinical trial for breast cancer and lung cancer at Indian sites.Perspectives in clinical research · 2013Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere have been dramatic increases over the past 20 years in the number of nonacademic, private-sector physicians who serve as principal investigators on US clinical trials sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. However, there has been little research on the implications of these investigators' role in clinical investigation. Our objective was to study private-sector clinics involved in US pharmaceutical clinical trials to understand the contract research arrangements supporting drug development, and specifically how private-sector physicians engaged in contract research describe their professional identities. METHODS AND
findingsWe conducted a qualitative study in 2003-2004 combining observation at 25 private-sector research organizations in the southwestern United States and 63 semi-structured interviews with physicians, research staff, and research participants at those clinics. We used grounded theory to analyze and interpret our data. The 11 private-sector physicians who participated in our study reported becoming principal investigators on industry clinical trials primarily because contract research provides an additional revenue stream. The physicians reported that they saw themselves as trial practitioners and as businesspeople rather than as scientists or researchers.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that in addition to having financial motivation to participate in contract research, these US private-sector physicians have a professional identity aligned with an industry-based approach to research ethics. The generalizability of these findings and whether they have changed in the intervening years should be addressed in future studies. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.
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.