Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36011235›Full record

ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Meeting the Need for a Discussion of Unmet Medical Need.

Denis Horgan, Bettina Borisch, Bogi Eliasen, Peter Kapitein, Andrew V Biankin, Stefan Gijssels, Michael Zaiac, Marie-Helene Fandel, Jonathan A Lal, Marta Kozaric and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

16 authors.

Denis HorganEuropean Alliance for Personalised Medicine, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
Bettina BorischInstitute of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland.
Bogi EliasenCopenhagen Institute for Futures Studies, 1473 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-7829-1854
Peter KapiteinInspire2Life, 3991 CD Houten, The Netherlands.
Andrew V BiankinWolfson Wohl Cancer Research Centre, Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, Garscube Estate, Switchback Road, Bearsden, Glasgow G61 1QH, UK.
Stefan GijsselsPatient Expert Centre (PEC), 1930 Zaventem, Belgium.
Michael ZaiacNovartis Pharma AG, 4056 Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-9994-6741
Marie-Helene FandelSanofi, 1831 Diegem, Belgium.
Jonathan A LalDepartment of Molecular and Cellular Engineering, Jacob Institute of Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences, Prayagraj 211007, India.
Marta KozaricEuropean Alliance for Personalised Medicine, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
Barbara MossBowel Cancer UK, London SE11 5DP, UK.
Ruggero De MariaAlleanza Contro il Cancro, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Marius GeantaFaculty of Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy "Carol Davila", 050474 Bucharest, Romania.
Frédérique NowakCoordination du Plan France Médecine Génomique 2025, Inserm, 75013 Paris, France.
Antoni Montserrat-MolinerEuropean Commission, 1471 Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
Olaf RiessInstitute of Medical Genetics and Applied Genomics, University of Tübingen, 72076 Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7011-1369

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As Europe and the world continue to battle against COVID, the customary complacency of society over future threats is clearly on display. Just 30 months ago, such a massive disruption to global lives, livelihoods and quality of life seemed unimaginable. Some remedial European Union action is now emerging, and more is proposed, including in relation to tackling "unmet medical need" (UMN). This initiative-directing attention to the future of treating disease and contemplating incentives to stimulate research and development-is welcome in principle. But the current approach being considered by EU officials merits further discussion, because it may prove counter-productive, impeding rather than promoting innovation. This paper aims to feed into these ongoing policy discussions, and rather than presenting research in the classical sense, it discusses the key elements from a multistakeholder perspective. Its central concern is over the risk that the envisaged support will fail to generate valuable new treatments if the legislation is phrased in a rigidly linear manner that does not reflect the serpentine realities of the innovation process, or if the definition placed on unmet medical need is too restrictive. It cautions that such an approach presumes that "unmet need" can be precisely and comprehensively defined in advance on the basis of the past. It cautions that such an approach can reinforce the comfortable delusion that the future is totally predictable-the delusion that left the world as easy prey to COVID. Instead, the paper urges reflection on how the legislation that will shortly enter the pipeline can be phrased so as to allow for the flourishing of a culture capable of rapid adaptation to the unexpected.

Indexed as

innovationpersonalised medicinepolicy frameworkregulationunmet medical need

Identifiers

PMID36011235
PMCPMC9408346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.