Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26612506›Full record

ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2016

Longitudinal trends and subgroup analysis in publication patterns for preclinical data of newly approved drugs.

Ursula Köster, Ingo Nolte, Martin C Michel

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ursula KösterKlinik für Kleintiere, Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Ingo NolteKlinik für Kleintiere, Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Martin C MichelDepartment of Translational Medicine and Clinical Pharmacology, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co KG, Ingelheim, Germany. marmiche@uni-mainz.de.
University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation · DEBoehringer Ingelheim (Germany) · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Having observed a large variation in the number and type of original preclinical publications for newly registered drugs, we have explored whether longitudinal trends and/or factors specific for certain drugs or their manufacturers may explain such variation. Our analysis is based on 1954 articles related to 170 newly approved drugs. The number of preclinical publications per compound declined from a median of 10.5 in 1991 to 3 in 2011. A similar trend was observed for the number of in vivo studies in general, but not in the subset of in vivo studies in animal models of disease. The percentage of compounds with studies using isolated human cells or cell lines almost doubled over time from 37 to 72%. Number of publications did not exhibit major differences between compounds intended for human versus veterinary use, therapeutic areas, small molecules versus biologicals, or innovator versus follow-up compounds; however, some companies may publish fewer studies per compound than others. However, there were qualitative differences in the types of models being used depending on the therapeutic area; specifically, compounds for use in oncology very often used isolated cells and cell lines, often from human origin. We conclude that the large variation in number and type of reported preclinical data is not easily explained. We propose that pharmaceutical companies should consistently provide a comprehensive documentation of the preclinical data they generate as part of their development programs in the public domain to enable a better understanding of the drugs they intend to market.

Indexed as

Drug ApprovalUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationAnimalsAnimal Testing AlternativesBibliometricsBiological AssayDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalHumansLongitudinal StudiesPeriodicals as TopicPharmacokineticsResearch DesignTime FactorsToxicity TestsUnited StatesAnimal modelDrug developmentPreclinical researchPublication strategy

Identifiers

PMID26612506
OpenAlexW2173268158

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.