Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30428900›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2018

Regulatory scientists' work has important ramifications for public health and should be open to public scrutiny.

Shai Mulinari, Courtney Davis

Open access · goldAbstract readLetterComment
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Shai MulinariDepartment of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Lund University, Box 117, SE-221 00, Lund, Sweden. shai.mulinari@soc.lu.se.ORCID 0000-0001-8773-9796
Courtney DavisDepartment of Global Health and Social Medicine, Faculty of Social Science and Public Policy, Kings College London, London, United Kingdom.
King's College London · GBLund University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Swedish Medical Products Agency (MPA) objects to the fact that we occasionally refer to one of its senior ex-employees by name. However, names of individual MPA assessors, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviewers, and European Medicines Agency rapporteurs and co-rapporteurs are cited in regulatory documents and are a matter of public record. In our paper (Health Res Policy Syst 15:93, 2017), we in no way suggest that regulatory decisions were left to individual reviewers or assessors, although we do emphasise that individual MPA and FDA employees' scientific assessments and benefit-risk evaluations are critical to the decision-making process. In this response to the MPA, we raise a further issue - one in which the question of personal identification of individuals is relevant - and this pertains to the accountability of influential scientists and experts who contribute to public policy decisions with important ramifications for public health. In our view, it is important that interested observers are able to identify those influential individuals, and entirely appropriate that their work should be open to public scrutiny.

Indexed as

Influenza, HumanPharmaceutical PreparationsDecision MakingHumansPublic HealthUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID30428900
PMCPMC6237023
OpenAlexW2896939101

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.