ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences
An evaluation of drug promotional literatures published in scientific medical journals.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEvaluation and comparison of ethical standards of published drug promotional literatures (DPLs) between different Indian and non-Indian scientific medical journals regarding compliance to the World Health Organization (WHO) and International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMAs) guidelines. MATERIALS AND
methodsA cross-sectional, observational study was carried out at pharmacology department. DPLs published in Indian and non-Indian scientific medical journals available at central library of medical college during the period of 6 months were collected according to selection criteria. DPLs were evaluated and compared for compliance to ethical standards of drug promotion laid by the WHO and IFPMA. Data were analyzed using Fisher's exact test.
resultsOut of total 178 DPLs, 103 DPLs were from Indian journals and 75 DPLs were from non-Indian journals. When compared regarding compliance to all the 11 ethical criteria of WHO, no significant difference was found between DPLs published in Indian and non-Indian journals. However, DPLs from indian journals contained significantly less information regarding dosage regimen (P = 0.0096), adverse drug reactions (P = 0.0028), warnings (P = 0.0104) and major drug interactions (P < 0.0001) as compared to non-Indian journals. Compliance to all the five IFPMA criteria was significantly higher in DPLs of non-Indian journals (88%) than Indian journals (39%) (P < 0.0001).
conclusionNoncompliance to ethical standards of WHO and IFPMA guidelines is more common in DPLs of Indian journals as compared to non-Indian journals. Thus strict implementation of regulatory measures regarding DPLs published in Indian medical journals is recommended.
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.