Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28667226›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

A cross-sectional analysis of pharmaceutical industry-funded events for health professionals in Australia.

Alice Fabbri, Quinn Grundy, Barbara Mintzes, Swestika Swandari, Ray Moynihan, Emily Walkom, Lisa A Bero

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 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. Psychology's medicalization of male baldness.Journal of health psychology · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. The murky world of disclosures.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2018
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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.

Alice FabbriCenter of Research in Medical Pharmacology, The University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.
Quinn GrundyCharles Perkins Centre and Faculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.
Barbara MintzesCharles Perkins Centre and Faculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.
Swestika SwandariCharles Perkins Centre and Faculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.
Ray MoynihanFaculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Robina, Australia.
Emily WalkomSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.
Lisa A BeroCharles Perkins Centre and Faculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo analyse patterns and characteristics of pharmaceutical industry sponsorship of events for Australian health professionals and to understand the implications of recent changes in transparency provisions that no longer require reporting of payments for food and beverages.

designCross-sectional analysis. PARTICIPANTS AND

setting301 publicly available company transparency reports downloaded from the website of Medicines Australia, the pharmaceutical industry trade association, covering the period from October 2011 to September 2015.

resultsForty-two companies sponsored 116 845 events for health professionals, on average 608 per week with 30 attendees per event. Events typically included a broad range of health professionals: 82.0% included medical doctors, including specialists and primary care doctors, and 38.3% trainees. Oncology, surgery and endocrinology were the most frequent clinical areas of focus. Most events (64.2%) were held in a clinical setting. The median cost per event was $A263 (IQR $A153-1195) and over 90% included food and beverages.

conclusionsOver this 4-year period, industry-sponsored events were widespread and pharmaceutical companies maintained a high frequency of contact with health professionals. Most events were held in clinical settings, suggesting a pervasive commercial presence in everyday clinical practice. Food and beverages, known to be associated with changes to prescribing practice, were almost always provided. New Australian transparency provisions explicitly exclude meals from the reporting requirements; thus, a large proportion of potentially influential payments from pharmaceutical companies to health professionals will disappear from public view.

Indexed as

AustraliaConflict of InterestCross-Sectional StudiesDatabases, FactualDisclosureDrug IndustryHealth PersonnelHumanseducation & training (see medical education &training)health policypublic health

Identifiers

PMID28667226
PMCPMC5726125

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.