Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23104048›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2013

Sorrell v. IMS Health: issues and opportunities for informaticians.

Carolyn Petersen, Paul Demuro, Kenneth W Goodman, Bonnie Kaplan

Abstract readLegal Case
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The role of law in supporting secondary uses of electronic health information.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2015
    Article
  2. Biomedical data privacy: problems, perspectives, and recent advances.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2013
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Carolyn PetersenGlobal Business Solutions, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. petersen.carolyn@mayo.edu
Paul Demuro
Kenneth W Goodman
Bonnie Kaplan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2011, the US Supreme Court decided Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., a case that addressed the mining of large aggregated databases and the sale of prescriber data for marketing prescription drugs. The court struck down a Vermont law that required data mining companies to obtain permission from individual providers before selling prescription records that included identifiable physician prescription information to pharmaceutical companies for drug marketing. The decision was based on constitutional free speech protections rather than data sharing considerations. Sorrell illustrates challenges at the intersection of biomedical informatics, public health, constitutional liberties, and ethics. As states, courts, regulatory agencies, and federal bodies respond to Sorrell, informaticians' expertise can contribute to more informed, ethical, and appropriate policies.

Indexed as

Drug PrescriptionsConfidentialityData MiningDrug IndustryElectronic Health RecordsHealth Insurance Portability and Accountability ActHumansInformation DisseminationMarketingPharmacy Service, HospitalSupreme Court DecisionsUnited StatesVermont

Identifiers

PMID23104048
PMCPMC3555336

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.