ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2020
Quality Decision-Making Practices in Pharmaceutical Companies and Regulatory Authorities: Current and Proposed Approaches to Its Documentation.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the Quality Decision-Making Practices Utilized by the Zambia Medicines Regulatory Authority Technical Committees.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Assessment of compliance with good review practices by medicine assessors within the Zambia medicines regulatory authority.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Trends in the utilization of medicines sold in the private sector post- registration in South Africa and the implications for similar countries.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Drug Quality Co-regulation Supervision Strategy Considering Collusion Behavior With New Media Participation.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies endeavor to relate their decision making with outcomes to improve future decision making and to ensure that gained knowledge is fed back into a learning system. Nevertheless, such a correlation can only be achieved by documenting the expected outcome of a decision at the time it is made, enabling comparison of the expected outcome with the actual result.
methodsParticipants at an international workshop discussed how the documentation of decisions could be evolved as companies and agencies look to improve their knowledge base. Discussions were informed by a pre-workshop survey of pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies.
resultsMost survey participants from 12 companies (55% response rate) and 11 agencies (73% response) have a system in place to enable documentation of major decisions, however, systems are used primarily to document outcomes rather than the process, while information from documentation is not always used, and feedback loops are not in place. The majority of participants indicated that their organization currently documents most decision-making practices included in the proposed template. Workshop participants agreed that all major past decisions should be referenceable and suggested incentives to enable decisions to be referenced, and confirmed elements and characteristics of a decision-documentation template.
conclusionsThis survey and workshop identified the current landscape and gaps in the documentation of decision making and suggested revisions for a proposed documentation template. The use of technology to enable information extraction with support from artificial intelligence and future decision making was a recommendation highlighted by participants.
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.