Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23558775›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2013

Pharmaceutical sales representatives and patient safety: a comparative prospective study of information quality in Canada, France and the United States.

Barbara Mintzes, Joel Lexchin, Jason M Sutherland, Marie-Dominique Beaulieu, Michael S Wilkes, Geneviève Durrieu, Ellen Reynolds

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pharmaceutical policies: effects of policies regulating drug marketing.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Navigating the Prescription Drug Information System.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Complaints about Violations of Voluntary and Pharmaceutical Industry-Run Medicine Promotion Codes in Canada.International journal of social determinants of health and health services · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Barbara MintzesSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, #307, 2176 Health Sciences Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6T 1Z3, Canada, Barbara.mintzes@ti.ubc.ca.
Joel Lexchin
Jason M Sutherland
Marie-Dominique Beaulieu
Michael S Wilkes
Geneviève Durrieu
Ellen Reynolds

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe information provided by pharmaceutical sales representatives has been shown to influence prescribing. To enable safe prescribing, medicines information must include harm as well as benefits. Regulation supports this aim, but relative effectiveness of different approaches is not known. The United States (US) and France directly regulate drug promotion; Canada relies on industry self-regulation. France has the strictest information standards.

methodsThis is a prospective cohort study in Montreal, Vancouver, Sacramento and Toulouse. We recruited random samples of primary care physicians from May 2009 to June 2010 to report on consecutive sales visits. The primary outcome measure was "minimally adequate safety information" (mention of at least one indication, serious adverse event, common adverse event, and contraindication, and no unqualified safety claims or unapproved indications).

resultsTwo hundred and fifty-five physicians reported on 1,692 drug-specific promotions. "Minimally adequate safety information" did not differ: 1.7 % of promotions; range 0.9-3.0 % per site. Sales representatives provided some vs. no information on harm more often in Toulouse than in Montreal and Vancouver: 61 % vs. 34 %, OR = 4.0; 95 % CI 2.8-5.6, or Sacramento (39 %), OR = 2.4; 95 % CI 1.7-3.6. Serious adverse events were rarely mentioned (5-6 % of promotions in all four sites), although 45 % of promotions were for drugs with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "black box" warnings of serious risks. Nevertheless, physicians judged the quality of scientific information to be good or excellent in 901 (54 %) of promotions, and indicated readiness to prescribe 64 % of the time. DISCUSSION: "Minimally adequate safety information" did not differ in the US and Canadian sites, despite regulatory differences. In Toulouse, consistent with stricter standards, more harm information was provided. However, in all sites, physicians were rarely informed about serious adverse events, raising questions about whether current approaches to regulation of sales representatives adequately protect patient health.

Indexed as

Patient SafetyAttitude of Health PersonnelCanadaDrug IndustryDrug Information ServicesDrug PrescriptionsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFranceHealth Services ResearchHumansMarketingPractice Patterns, Physicians'Primary Health CareProspective StudiesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID23558775
PMCPMC3785667

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.