ArticleAdvances in therapy2017
Awareness, Knowledge, and Perceptions of Biosimilars Among Specialty Physicians.
Article in Advances in therapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 94 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
94 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Biosimilar monoclonal antibodies for cancer treatment in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Mitigating the Nocebo Effect in Biosimilar Use and Switching: A Systematic Review.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Nocebo in Biosimilars and Generics in Neurology: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Pooled it
- Factors Affecting Health Care Provider Knowledge and Acceptance of Biosimilar Medicines: A Systematic Review.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2019Pooled it
- The Biosimilar Nocebo Effect? A Systematic Review of Double-Blinded Versus Open-Label Studies.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2018Pooled it
- Perceptions and Preferences for Defining Biosimilar Products in Prescription Drug Promotion.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Navigating the Transition: A Scoping Review of System-Level Factors in Biosimilar Integration for Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2026Article
- Toward Regulatory Convergence and Streamlined Biosimilar Development: Recommendations from an International Qualitative Study.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2025Article
- Temporal Trends in the Prescription of Biosimilars and the Status of Switching from Original Biologics to Biosimilars at Individual and Institutional Levels in Japan.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2025Article
- Review
- Evaluation of rheumatologists' knowledge of biosimilars.Advances in rheumatology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Generics, Biosimilars and Follow-On Non-Biologic Complex Drugs for Multiple Sclerosis: A Narrative Review of the Regulatory and Clinical Implications for European Neurologists.European journal of neurology · 2025Review
- Contextual factors in value-based decision support to enhance health technologies adoption: the case of biosimilars.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Biosimilars in practice: Discriminant factors influencing prescription decisions among physicians in Thailand.PloS one · 2025Article
- Knowledge and Attitudes of Patients with Rheumatoid Diseases towards Biosimilars.Mediterranean journal of rheumatology · 2024Article
- An evaluation of the utilisation of biosimilar monoclonal antibody drugs in Ireland and barriers to their usage.Irish journal of medical science · 2024Article
- Perception of pharmacological equivalence of generics or biosimilars in healthcare professionals in Vienna.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2024Article
- Unveiling the Biosimilar Paradox of Oncologists' Perceptions and Hesitations in South Korea: A Web-Based Survey Study.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2024Article
34 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Biosimilars Forum conducted a survey through an independent organization from November 20, 2015 to January 4, 2016 in order to assess current levels of awareness, knowledge, and perceptions of biosimilars among US specialty physicians who already prescribe biologics. The survey was intended to provide a baseline level of knowledge about biosimilars and will be repeated in 2-3 years in order to monitor trends over time.
methodsA 19-question survey was created by the Biosimilars Forum and was administered by an independent third party.
resultsResponses were obtained from 1201 US physicians across specialties that are high prescribers of biologics, including dermatologists, gastroenterologists, hematologist-oncologists, medical oncologists, nephrologists, and rheumatologists.
conclusionsThe results of this survey highlight a significant need for evidence-based education about biosimilars for physicians across specialties. Five major knowledge gaps were identified: defining biologics, biosimilars, and biosimilarity; understanding the approval process and the use of "totality of evidence" to evaluate biosimilars; understanding that the safety and immunogenicity of a biosimilar are comparable to the originator biologic; understanding the rationale for extrapolation of indications; and defining interchangeability and the related rules regarding pharmacy-level substitution.
fundingBiosimilars Forum.
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.