ReviewNature reviews. Drug discovery2013
The most transformative drugs of the past 25 years: a survey of physicians.
Review in Nature reviews. Drug discovery, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Small-molecule inhibitors of the CD40-CD40L costimulatory interaction are effective in pancreatic islet transplantation and prevention of type 1 diabetes models.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- Newly approved cancer drugs in China - innovation and clinical benefit.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Predictive validity in drug discovery: what it is, why it matters and how to improve it.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2022Review
- Making Sure That Orphan Incentives Tip the Right Way in Europe.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Integrated genome and tissue engineering enables screening of cancer vulnerabilities in physiologically relevant perfusable ex vivo cultures.Biomaterials · 2022Article
- Structural Approach to Assessing the Innovativeness of New Drugs Finds Accelerating Rate of Innovation.ACS medicinal chemistry letters · 2020Article
- The Sanford Lorraine Cross Award for medical innovation: Advancing a rigorous and repeatable method for recognizing translational research leaders who today are bringing emerging transformative innovations to patients.Journal of clinical and translational research · 2020Article
- Identification of translational dermatology research priorities in the U.K.: results of an electronic Delphi exercise.The British journal of dermatology · 2015Article
- URGCP/URG4 promotes apoptotic resistance in bladder cancer cells by activating NF-κB signaling.Oncotarget · 2015Article
- Article
- A pain research agenda for the 21st century.The journal of pain · 2014Article
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
Strategic and legislative efforts to catalyse pharmaceutical innovation may be hampered by a lack of consensus over what characterizes an innovative drug. To help clarify this issue, we conducted an extensive survey on transformative drug development, involving ∼180 expert physicians based at 30 leading US academic medical centres, covering 15 medical specialties. In an iterative Delphi process, the survey participants narrowed a list of all new drugs approved in their fields in the past 25 years and reached consensus over those that they considered to be most transformative, which are presented in this article. Participants were also asked how various factors affected their opinion; they most often invoked the effectiveness and superiority of the drugs over existing alternatives when identifying transformative drug innovation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23681007What 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.