SynthesisBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2018
Marketing medicines: charting the rise of modern therapeutics through a systematic review of adverts in UK medical journals (1950-1980).
Synthesis in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Marketing medicines: charting the rise of modern therapeutics through a systematic review of adverts in UK medical journals (1950-1980).British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Pooled it
- Advertising to Healthcare Professionals: Insights from Parkinson's Disease in the Movement Disorders Journal.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2026Article
- Me-too pharmaceutical products: History, definitions, examples, and relevance to drug shortages and essential medicines lists.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Review
- The British Pharmacological Society's WDM Paton Memorial Lecture 2019: How doctors were informed about pharmaceutical products through advertising in the British Medical Journal from 1955/6 to 1985/6.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo examine how pharmaceutical products that were first marketed between 1950 and 1980 were promoted to physicians through advertisements and briefly review advertising regulations and accuracy of the advertisements in the light of modern knowledge.
methodsWe systematically reviewed advertisements promoting drugs for specific therapeutic areas, namely central nervous system disorders (anxiety and sleep disorders, depression, psychoses, and Parkinson's disease), respiratory disorders, cardiovascular disorders, and gastrointestinal disorders. We examined about 800 issues of the British Medical Journal (1950-1980) and about 150 issues of World Medicine (1965-1984).
resultsAdvertising material was minimally regulated until the mid-1970s. Many drugs were marketed with little preclinical or clinical knowledge and some with the expectation that prescribers would obtain further data. The peak of advertising occurred in parallel with the surge in the release of novel drugs during the 1960s, but declined markedly after the mid-1970s. Advertisements generally contained little useful prescribing information. The period we investigated saw the release of many novel pharmaceuticals in the therapeutic areas we examined, and many (or their class successors) still play important therapeutic roles, including benzodiazepines, tricyclic antidepressants, phenothiazines, levodopa, selective and non-selective β-adrenoceptor antagonists, thiazide diuretics, β-adrenoceptor agonists, and histamine H
conclusionsAdvertising pharmaceuticals in the BMJ and World Medicine in 1950-1980 was poorly regulated and often lacked rigour. However, advertisements were gradually modified in the light of increasing clinical pharmacological knowledge, and they reflect an exciting period for the introduction of many drugs that continue to be of benefit today.
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.