ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2017
Contribution of industry funded post-marketing studies to drug safety: survey of notifications submitted to regulatory agencies.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating the cardiovascular safety of sclerostin inhibition using evidence from meta-analysis of clinical trials and human genetics.Science translational medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Adherence to legislation and recommendations to publicly post protocols and results of post-authorisation studies registered with European Medicines Agency: cross sectional study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2026Article
- Comparative Safety Profiles of Biosimilars vs. Originators Used in Rheumatology: A Pharmacovigilance Analysis of the EudraVigilance Database.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- LitAutoScreener: Development and Validation of an Automated Literature Screening Tool in Evidence-Based Medicine Driven by Large Language Models.Health data science · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the knowledge of and attitudes towards pharmacovigilance among healthcare students in China: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Phase IV Drug Trials With a Canadian Site: A Comparison of Industry-Funded and Non-Industry-Funded Trials.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Article
- Comparative Safety Profiles of Oncology Biosimilars vs. Originators in Europe: An Analysis of the EudraVigilance Database.Cancers · 2023Article
- Commentary: Reconsidering Pharmaceutical Research and Development Investments.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2023Article
- [Transparency in clinical research: What contribution does the new EU Regulation 536/2014 make?]Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2023Review
- Responding to the opioid crisis in North America and beyond: recommendations of the Stanford-Lancet Commission.Lancet (London, England) · 2022Review
- Real-World Evidence of an Emollient Device for Atopic and Contact Dermatitis in Pediatric to Adult Patients - Data from a Post-Marketing Surveillance.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2022Article
- Comparison of Pharmaceutical Characteristics between Brand-Name Meropenem and Its Generics.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Impact of physicians' participation in non-interventional post-marketing studies on their prescription habits: A retrospective 2-armed cohort study in Germany.PLoS medicine · 2020Article
- Post marketing surveillance of suspected adverse drug reactions through spontaneous reporting: current status, challenges and the future.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2020Review
- Does Industry-Conducted All-Case Surveillance of Newly Approved Oncology Drugs Contribute to the Revision of Package Inserts in Japan?Clinical and translational science · 2019Article
- The ENCePP Code of Conduct: A best practise for scientific independence and transparency in noninterventional postauthorisation studies.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2019Review
- Post-marketing studies of pharmaceutical opioid abuse-deterrent formulations: a framework for research design and reporting.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2019Article
- Tracking the timely dissemination of clinical studies. Characteristics and impact of 10 tracking variables.F1000Research · 2018Article
- Real-world evidence research based on big data: Motivation-challenges-success factors.Der Onkologe : Organ der Deutschen Krebsgesellschaft e.V · 2018Review
- Role of Pharmacovigilance in Drug Safety Monitoring.Indian dermatology online journalReview
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the practice of post-marketing studies in Germany during a three year period and to evaluate whether these trials meet the aims specified in the German Medicinal Products Act.
designSurvey of notifications submitted to German regulatory agencies before post-marketing studies were carried out, 2008-10.
settingNotifications obtained through freedom of information requests to the three authorities responsible for registering post-marketing studies in Germany.
main outcome measuresDescriptive statistics of post-marketing studies, including the products under study, intended number of patients, intended number of participating physicians, proposed remunerations, study plan and protocol, and availability of associated scientific publications and reports on adverse drug reactions.
resultsInformation was obtained from 558 studies, with a median of 600 (mean 2331, range 2-75 000) patients and 63 (270, 0-7000) participating physicians per study. The median remuneration to physicians per patient was €200 (€441, €0-€7280) (£170, £0-£6200; $215, $0-$7820), with a total remuneration cost of more than €217m for 558 studies registered over the three year period. The median remuneration per participating physician per study was €2000 (mean €19 424), ranging from €0 to €2 080 000. There was a broad range of drugs and non-drug products, of which only a third represented recently approved drugs. In many notifications, data, information, and results were, by contract, strictly confidential and the sole property of the respective sponsor. No single adverse drug reaction report could be identified from any of the 558 post-marketing studies. Less than 1% of studies could be verified as published in scientific journals.
conclusionsPost-marketing studies are not improving drug safety surveillance. Sample sizes are generally too small to allow the detection of rare adverse drug reactions, and many participating physicians are strictly obliged to maintain confidentiality towards the sponsor. High remuneration and strict confidentiality clauses in these studies could influence the physicians' reporting behaviours of adverse drug reactions.
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.