ReviewTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2021
Promoting Best Practices for Medical Science Liaisons Position Statement from the APPA, IFAPP, MAPS and MSLS.
Review in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Embracing Digital as a Paradigm Shift in Medical Affairs.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2026Review
- Redefining "Level of Involvement": A Stage-Based Governance Framework for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Innovation.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Building Bridges: The Impact of Medical Science Liaison and Advanced Practice Provider Collaborations.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2026Article
- Development of a Competency Framework for Medical Affairs Professionals in Australasia.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2026Article
- How Can General Managers Best Leverage Medical Affairs Now and in the Future?Pharmaceutical medicine · 2024Article
- Redefining the Role of Medical Affairs Professionals as Innovators and Leaders in Industry-Led Medical Education.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2024Article
- A descriptive survey of specialty pharmacy team members' perceptions of interactions with field representatives from pharmaceutical companies.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2023Article
- The Medical Science Liaison Role in Spain: Opinion of the Commercial Department Personnel.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2023Article
- Digital Transformation in Medical Affairs Sparked by the Pandemic: Insights and Learnings from COVID-19 Era and Beyond.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2022Review
- Professional qualifications of medical affairs pharmaceutical physicians and other internal stakeholders in the pharmaceutical industry.F1000Research · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This position paper is intended to provide recommendations that will help lay the foundation for best practices for medical science liaisons (MSLs) and their activities. Its objective is to outline the roles and responsibilities expected of an MSL and provide clarity on the juxtaposition of MSLs and Sales representatives (SRs) when it comes to scientific exchange versus promotional messaging. It is of utmost importance that industry integrity and ethical standards are assured during external stakeholder engagement as well as medical and scientific communications. This guidance, delivered through the lens of APPA, IFAPP, MAPS and the MSLS executive committees, has been prepared primarily as a supportive resource to assist the Medical Affairs teams in the industry to develop their own set of standard operating procedures (SOPs), codes of conduct and policies within the framework of relevant industry regulations. We acknowledge that whilst there are guidelines already available that provide excellent directive to the MSL function, this paper is a review and distillation of these existing recommendations combined with the perspectives of four peak professional bodies to offer a practically focused resource to help MSLs interact, collaborate and exchange scientific information appropriately with external experts when out in the field.
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.