ArticleBMJ open2020
Quality of advertisements for prescription drugs in family practice medical journals published in Australia, Canada and the USA with different regulatory controls: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pharmaceutical policies: effects of policies regulating drug marketing.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Doctors' Conflict-of-Interest; What it Looks Like and What to do About it.International journal of social determinants of health and health services · 2026Article
- Written drug promotion from pharmaceutical companies to general practitioners: adherence to regulations over two decades.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- Complaints about Violations of Voluntary and Pharmaceutical Industry-Run Medicine Promotion Codes in Canada.International journal of social determinants of health and health services · 2023Article
- Knowledge and Practice of Antibiotic Management and Prudent Prescribing among Polish Medical Doctors.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Policing the promotion of prescription medicines - the new Medicines Australia Code of Conduct.Australian prescriber · 2021Article
- Promotion or education: a content analysis of industry-authored oral health educational materials targeted at acute care nurses.BMJ open · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess if different forms of regulation lead to differences in the quality of journal advertisements.
designCross-sectional study.
participantsThirty advertisements from family practice journals published from 2013 to 2015 were extracted for three countries with distinct regulatory pharmaceutical promotion systems: Australia, Canada and the USA. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Advertisements under each regulatory system were compared concerning three domains: information included in the advertisement, references to scientific evidence and pictorial appeals and portrayals. An overall ranking for advertisement quality among countries was determined using the first two domains as the information assessed has been associated with more appropriate prescribing.
resultsAdvertisements varied significantly for number of claims with quantitative benefit (Australia: 0.0 (0.0-3.0); Canada: 0.0 (0.0-5.0); USA: 1.0 (0.0-6.0); p=0.01); statistical method used in reporting benefit (relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction and number needed to treat; Australia: 6.7%, n=2; Canada: 10.0%, n=3; USA: 36.6%, n=11; p=0.02); mention of adverse effects, warnings or contraindications (Australia: 13.3%, n=4; Canada: 23.3%, n=7; USA: 53.3%, n=16; p=0.002); equal prominence between safety and benefit information (Australia: 25.0%, n=1; Canada: 28.6%, n=2; USA: 75.0%, n=12; p=0.04); and methodological quality of references score (Australia: 0.4150 (0.25-0.70); Canada: 0.25 (0.00-0.63); USA: 0.25 (0.00-0.75); p<0.001). The USA ranked first, Canada second and Australia third for overall quality of journal advertisements. Significant differences for humour appeals (Australia: 3.3%, n=1; Canada: 13.3%, n=4; USA: 26.7%, n=8; p=0.04), positive emotional appeals (Australia: 26.7%, n=8; Canada: 60.0%, n=18; USA: 50.0%, n=15; p=0.03), social approval portrayals (Australia: 0.0%, n=0; Canada: 0.0%, n=0; USA: 10.0%, n=3; p=0.04) and lifestyle or work portrayals (Australia: 43.3%, n=13; Canada: 50.0%, n=15; USA: 76.7%, n=23; p=0.02) were found among countries.
conclusionsDifferent regulatory systems influence journal advertisement quality concerning all measured domains. However, differences may also be attributed to other regulatory, legal, cultural or health system factors unique to each country.
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.