SynthesisGlobal journal of health science2015
R&D implementation in a department of laboratory medicine and pathology: a systematic review based on pharmaceutical companies.
Synthesis in Global journal of health science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
A systematic literature review on pharmaceutical companies may be a tool for guiding some procedures of R&D implementation in a department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology. The use of pharmaceutical companies for this specific analysis arises from less variability of standards than healthcare facilities. In this qualitative and quantitative analysis, we focused on three useful areas of implementation, including R&D productivity, commercialization strategies, and expenditures determinants of pharmaceutical companies. Studies and reports of online databases from 1965 to 2014 were reviewed according to specific search terms. Initially, 218 articles and reports were found and examined, but only 91 were considered appropriate and used for further analysis. We identified some suggested implementation strategies relevant for marketing to enhance companies' own R&D strategies; such as reliability of companies on "sourcing-in" R&D facilities and "think-tank" events. Regardless of the study and of the country, cash flow and profitability always positively influenced R&D expenditure, while sales and firm size did not. We consider that handling R&D determinants should require caution. It seems critical that implementation of R&D systems is directly related with productivity, if it reflects dual embodiment of efficiency and effectiveness. Scrutinizing the determinants of R&D expenditures emphasizes significant factors that are worth to highlight when planning an R&D investment strategy. Although there is no receipt fitting every situation, we think that health care plan makers may find relevant data in this systematic review in creating an initial implementation framework.
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.