ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2015
Expectations and satisfaction of academic investigators in nonclinical collaboration with the pharmaceutical industry.
Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2015. 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.
- Project-Based Public-Private Collaborations.Handbook of experimental pharmacology · 2024Review
- Preclinical research strategies for newly approved drugs as reflected in early publication patterns.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2016Article
- Opportunities and Challenges for Drug Development: Public-Private Partnerships, Adaptive Designs and Big Data.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2016Review
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
In light of a growing role of research collaborations between academia and the pharmaceutical industry, we have explored expectations and experience of academic investigators with preclinical collaborations. Researchers from Western Europe, North America, and Japan with preclinical publications in the obstructed airways or diabetes fields were invited to anonymously participate in a web-based survey. A total of 134 investigators (28 % of invitees) participated in the two sequentially performed surveys with similar responses in both therapeutic areas. A secondary but prespecified subgroup analysis was based on region of residence, gender, and career level of the investigator. Across all groups, responders considered freedom to publish, obtaining funding and obtaining compounds to be the most important objectives of nonclinical collaborations with the pharmaceutical industry, whereas cultivating professional relationships, getting external scientific input, direct relationship to disease treatment, and involvement with drug development were less important. Among eight attributes of the primary contact person in the company, trustworthiness ranked highest, followed by a collaborative spirit and transparent information sharing; supportiveness, scientific qualification, accessibility, and timeliness of responses ranked lower, and friendliness, lowest. Related to their most recent collaboration, investigators also expressed the highest level of satisfaction with the trustworthiness attribute. On the other hand, the process of reaching a contract was often considered too long and difficult, for which both university and company legal departments were reported as culprits. We conclude that academic researchers are generally satisfied with their preclinical collaboration with the pharmaceutical industry but look for improved contracting procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25720948What 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.