Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28406971›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2017

Association between physicians' interaction with pharmaceutical companies and their clinical practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hneine Brax, Racha Fadlallah, Lina Al-Khaled, Lara A Kahale, Hala Nas, Fadi El-Jardali, Elie A Akl

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

73 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pharmaceutical policies: effects of policies regulating drug marketing.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Navigating the Prescription Drug Information System.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Introduction of Biopharmaceuticals in Europe: A Cross-Sectional Study of Early Diffusion Patterns and Data Availability.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2025
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Hneine BraxFaculty of Medicine, Université Saint Joseph, Beirut, Lebanon.
Racha FadlallahCenter for Systematic Reviews of Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Lina Al-KhaledDepartment of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Lara A KahaleDepartment of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Hala NasFaculty of Medicine, University of Damascus, Damascus, Syria.
Fadi El-JardaliCenter for Systematic Reviews of Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Elie A AklCenter for Systematic Reviews of Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK), American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3444-8618

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPharmaceutical company representatives likely influence the prescribing habits and professional behaviors of physicians. The objective of this study was to systematically review the association between physicians' interactions with pharmaceutical companies and their clinical practices.

methodsWe used the standard systematic review methodology. Observational and experimental study designs examining any type of targeted interaction between practicing physicians and pharmaceutical companies were eligible. The search strategy included a search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases up to July 2016. Two reviewers selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate and independently. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.

resultsTwenty articles reporting on 19 studies met our inclusion criteria. All of these studies were conducted in high-income countries and examined different types of interactions, including detailing, industry-funded continuing medical education, and receiving free gifts. While all included studies assessed prescribing behaviors, four studies also assessed financial outcomes, one assessed physicians' knowledge, and one assessed their beliefs. None of the studies assessed clinical outcomes. Out of the 19 studies, 15 found a consistent association between interactions promoting a medication, and inappropriately increased prescribing rates, lower prescribing quality, and/or increased prescribing costs. The remaining four studies found both associations and lack of significant associations for the different types of exposures and drugs examined in the studies. A meta-analysis of six of these studies found a statistically significant association between exposure and physicians' prescribing behaviors (OR = 2.52; 95% CI 1.82-3.50). The quality of evidence was downgraded to moderate for risk of bias and inconsistency. Sensitivity analysis excluding studies at high risk of bias did not substantially change these results. A subgroup analysis did not find a difference by type of exposure.

conclusionThere is moderate quality evidence that physicians' interactions with pharmaceutical companies are associated with their prescribing patterns and quality.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicDrug IndustryInterprofessional RelationsObservational Studies as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'

Identifiers

PMID28406971
PMCPMC5391068

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.