Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28174182›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2017

Contribution of industry funded post-marketing studies to drug safety: survey of notifications submitted to regulatory agencies.

Angela Spelsberg, Christof Prugger, Peter Doshi, Kerstin Ostrowski, Thomas Witte, Dieter Hüsgen, Ulrich Keil, Working Group on Health and Working Group on Freedom of Information, Transparency International Deutschland eV

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. [Transparency in clinical research: What contribution does the new EU Regulation 536/2014 make?]Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2023
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Real-world evidence research based on big data: Motivation-challenges-success factors.Der Onkologe : Organ der Deutschen Krebsgesellschaft e.V · 2018
    Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Angela SpelsbergTransparency International Deutschland eV, Working Group on Health and Working Group on Freedom of Information, Alte Schönhauser Strasse 44, 10119 Berlin, Germany spelsberg@tuzac.de.
Christof PruggerInstitute of Public Health, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Seestrasse 73, 13347 Berlin, Germany.
Peter DoshiUniversity of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Health Services Research Department, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Kerstin OstrowskiComprehensive Cancer Centre Aachen, Pauwelsstrasse 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
Thomas WitteComprehensive Cancer Centre Aachen, Pauwelsstrasse 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
Dieter HüsgenTransparency International Deutschland eV, Working Group on Health and Working Group on Freedom of Information, Alte Schönhauser Strasse 44, 10119 Berlin, Germany.
Ulrich KeilTransparency International Deutschland eV, Working Group on Health and Working Group on Freedom of Information, Alte Schönhauser Strasse 44, 10119 Berlin, Germany.
Working Group on Health and Working Group on Freedom of Information, Transparency International Deutschland eV

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Drug ApprovalDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsProduct Surveillance, PostmarketingAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsDrug IndustryFinancial ManagementGermanyHumansOutcome and Process Assessment, Health Care

Identifiers

PMID28174182
PMCPMC5477378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.