Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34386378›Full record

ArticlePerspectives in clinical research

A study of perceptions and exposure of drug promotional literature among clinicians in a teaching hospital.

Sushil Sharma, Neha Akhoon, Htet Wai Moe, Deepak R Nair, Venkat Shashidhar

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives in clinical research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sushil SharmaDepartment of Pharmacology, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Neha AkhoonDepartment of Pharmacology, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Htet Wai MoeDepartment of Pharmacology, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Deepak R NairDepartment of Pharmacology, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Venkat ShashidharDepartment of Pharmacology, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Armed Forces Medical College · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDrug promotional literature (DPL) forms a major marketing technique of pharmaceutical companies for propagating information regarding a drug. Many a times, it is the only source on which treating physicians depend for updating their knowledge about the existing and novel drugs. AIMS AND

objectivesThis study was conducted to understand the clinicians' perceptions about DPL and its critical appraisal so that relevant interventions can be made. MATERIALS AND

methodsIt was a cross-sectional questionnaire based study. A self-administered validated questionnaire was administered to 125 clinicians working in a medical college, which sought responses on their perception of various aspects including interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference and decision making based on the DPL which they encounter in their day-to-day practices. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics.

resultsA total of 100 clinicians reciprocated with complete questionnaire. 99% of the clinicians were exposed to pharmaceutical promotional activities and around 79% clinicians accepted that drug promotion has a considerable bearing on their prescribing practices. Majority (79%) of the clinicians felt that the accuracy of the claims in the various forms of DPL was between 50-75%. Amongst the various forms of DPL, brochures were adjudged as the most useful followed by interactions with medical representatives, advertisements in medical journals and direct mailers. a majority of the clinicians (69%) felt that, though the claims in the DPL are balanced but are supported by poor evidence. Around 75% clinicians perceived the primary intention of drug promotional literature was to boost company sales. Around 84% clinicians felt that doctors' integrity can be compromised by accepting gifts from medical representatives. Over 75% of clinicians believed that training in interacting with medical representatives and assessing other forms of drug promotional literature should be imparted to undergraduates in medical colleges.

conclusionPhysicians need to be aware that the pharmaceutical industry may use drug advertisements to influence prescription patterns even when this results in distortion of scientific facts. The pharmaceutical industry should be more responsible and more meticulous in making sure that pharmaceutical claims referring to scientific studies are quoted accurately.

Indexed as

Critical appraisaldrug promotional literaturepharmaceutical marketing

Identifiers

PMID34386378
PMCPMC8323565
OpenAlexW3021410568

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.