ArticleBMJ open2020
Promotion or education: a content analysis of industry-authored oral health educational materials targeted at acute care nurses.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Continuing medical education program completion and influencing factors: a cross-sectional study in Sichuan Province, China.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Potential Allergenicity of Plants Used in Allergological Communication: An Untapped Tool for Prevention.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- How the Suboxone Education Programme presented as a solution to risks in the Canadian opioid crisis: a critical discourse analysis.BMJ open · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the nature, quality and independence of scientific evidence provided in support of claims in industry-authored educational materials in oral health.
designA content analysis of educational materials authored by the four major multinational oral health product manufacturers.
settingAcute care settings.
participants68 documents focused on oral health or oral care, targeted at acute care clinicians and identified as 'educational' on companies' international websites.
main outcome measuresData were extracted in duplicate for three areas of focus: (a) products referenced in the documents, (b) product-related claims and (c) citations substantiating claims. We assessed claim-citation pairs to determine if information in the citation supported the claim. We analysed the inter-relationships among cited authors and companies using social network analysis.
resultsDocuments ranged from training videos to posters to brochures to continuing education courses. The majority of educational materials explicitly mentioned a product (59/68, 87%), a branded product (35/68, 51%), and made a product-related claim (55/68, 81%). Among claims accompanied by a citation, citations did not support the majority (91/147, 62%) of claims, largely because citations were unrelated. References used to support claims most often represented lower levels of evidence: only 9% were systematic reviews (7/76) and 13% were randomised controlled trials (10/76). We found a network of 20 authors to account for 37% (n=77/206) of all references in claim-citation pairs; 60% (12/20) of the top 20 cited authors received financial support from one of the four sampled manufacturers.
conclusionsResources to support clinicians' ongoing education are scarce. However, caution should be exercised when relying on industry-authored materials to support continuing education for oral health. Evidence of sponsorship bias and reliance on key opinion leaders suggests that industry-authored educational materials have promotional intent and should be regulated as such.
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.