ReviewNature reviews. Nephrology2014
Drug development: how academia, industry and authorities interact.
Review in Nature reviews. Nephrology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification of Potential Causal Genes for Neurodegenerative Diseases by Mitochondria-Related Genome-Wide Mendelian Randomization.Molecular neurobiology · 2025Article
- Toxic Injury to Muscle Tissue of Rats Following Acute Oximes Exposure.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- West Meets East.Kidney diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2015Article
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
Unfortunately, abundant examples could be given of pitfalls in the current drug development paradigm-including in the design, conduct and evaluation of phase III clinical trials. This article discusses issues of particular relevance to clinical trials in nephrology, including the inappropriate use of placebo, publication of reports that emphasize potential treatment benefits over adverse reactions, the sometimes dubious impartiality of independent guidelines, and inadequate recruitment of elderly patients. This Perspectives article aims to highlight and summarize the flaws in the current drug development process, while suggesting a way forward that equally satisfies the requirements of academia, patients and the pharmaceutical industry. We suggest improvements to the drug development process and related legislation that intend to balance public needs with commercial aims and ensure effective drug evaluation by regulatory authorities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25092151What 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.