ArticleThe Libyan journal of medicine2012
Doctors' opinions of information provided by Libyan pharmaceutical company representatives.
Article in The Libyan journal of medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of physicians in low and middle-income countries regarding interacting with pharmaceutical companies: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2016Pooled it
- Article
- Physicians' perceptions of medical representative visits in Yemen: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2013Article
- A study on the interactions of doctors with medical representatives of pharmaceutical companies in a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital of South India.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the opinions of Libyan doctors regarding the quality of drug information provided by pharmaceutical company representatives (PCRs) during detailing visits.
methodAn anonymous survey was conducted among 1,000 doctors from selected institutes in Tripoli, Benghazi and Sebha. Doctors were asked questions regarding the quality of information provided during drug-detailing visits.
resultsA questionnaire return rate of 61% (608 returned questionnaires out of 1,000) was achieved. The majority (n=463, 76%) of surveyed participants graded the quality of information provided as average. Approximately, 40% of respondents indicated that contraindications, precautions, interactions and adverse effects of products promoted by PCRs were never or rarely mentioned during promotional visits, and 65% of respondents indicated that an alternative drug to the promoted product was never or rarely mentioned by the representatives. More than 50% of respondents (n=310, 51%) reported that PCRs were not always able to answer all questions about their products. Only seven respondents (1%) believed that PCRs never exaggerated the uniqueness, efficacy or safety of their product. The majority of respondents (n=342, 56%) indicated that verbal information was not always consistent with written information provided. Seven per cent of respondents (n=43) admitted that they did not know whether or not the verbal information provided by PCRs was consistent with written information.
conclusionDoctors believe that the provision of drug information by PCRs in Libya is incomplete and often exaggerated. Pharmaceutical companies should ensure that their representatives are trained to a standard to provide reliable information regarding the products they promote.
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.