ArticleBMC primary care2022
Pharmaceutical brochures in Lebanon: do they meet WHO recommendations?
Article in BMC primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Adherence to evidence-based implementation of antimicrobial treatment guidelines among prescribers in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDrug promoting brochures can influence physicians prescription patterns. The validity of the info presented in these brochures is of major importance. World Health Organization (WHO) issued criteria to guarantee validity, equity and ethical presentation of data in medical brochures. This study aims to evaluate the quality and the validity of information presented in the pharmaceutical brochures distributed among family physicians in Lebanon.
methodsPharmaceutical brochures were randomly collected at the family medicine center in Hôtel Dieu de France hospital in Beirut - Lebanon. These brochures were evaluated in reference to the WHO ethical criteria for medicinal drug promotion and on guidelines for quality assurance of the graphs, references, texts and illustrations.
resultsAmong the 60 brochures collected, only 4 fulfilled all the WHO ethical criteria, and 24 presented less than half the required criteria. Information concerning the drug safety are the least mentioned. Only 11.8% of the presented graphs are based on studies of high methodological level. Half of the brochures presented necessary information to identify studies references which are not always retrievable. Texts present mainly brand names instead of generic names and emphasize on information reflecting the drug efficacy.
conclusionThe pharmaceutical brochures in this study presented incomplete or invalid information. Prescribing physicians should be aware of the claims found in the brochures distributed by pharmaceutical companies and should be familiar with the principles of the evidence-based medicine to be able to critically appraise the validity of the reference studies and avoid the pitfalls in graphs reading.
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.