ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2019
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.
Review in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We have reviewed pharmaceutical advertisements in every available issue of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in 12-month periods during 1955/6, 1965/6, 1975/6, and 1985/6. We have determined the amount of advertising, the therapeutic areas covered, and whether adverts reflected the large number of New Chemical Entities (NCEs) launched during that time. For each product we recorded the therapeutic indications, the marketing company, and the number of adverts appearing. The total number of products advertised fell from 340 in 1955/6 to 260 in 1965/6, 70 in 1975/6, and 16 in 1985/6. Advertisement numbers and companies advertising also fell. Antimicrobial drugs and cardiovascular drugs were the top products advertised over the 30 years, with respiratory, analgesic, and gastrointestinal drugs also in the top five. The number of different drugs advertised by individual companies fell from around eight per company in 1955/6 to one or two in 1985/6. There was good concordance between the most advertised therapeutic areas and NCEs entering the market. From the 1950s to the 1980s prescribers were extensively informed about pharmacological advances in therapeutics through BMJ advertisements. Many novel drugs that were advertised proved to be of lasting value. The Medicines Act 1968 introduced product licensing, regulations requiring demonstration of quality, efficacy, and safety, and restrictions on advertising. Subsequently many companies reduced their advertising or stopped altogether. Since advertising influences prescribing, and since antimicrobial drugs were the most commonly advertised products during 1955-86, we speculate that advertising, resulting in excess use, may have, at least partly, driven bacterial drug resistance.
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.