Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36928849›Full record

ReviewAdvances in neurobiology2023

Post-Approval Research in Drug Development: Priorities and Practices.

David Williamson, Jack Sheehan, Ella Daly

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in neurobiology, 2023. 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

3 authors.

David WilliamsonUniversity of South Alabama College of Medicine, Departments of Psychiatry and Neurology, Mobile, AL, USA.
Jack SheehanIndependent Medical Consultant, Doylestown, PA, USA.
Ella DalyJanssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Titusville, NJ, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A prescriber might ask if a new medication is a good option for use in the patients he or she sees in clinic, with their particular blends of demographic and comorbid clinical characteristics. Is this medicine more effective, safe, tolerable, or affordable than the options used in the past? A payer may ask if the new medication offers a more effective, cost-efficient, or convenient alternative to those treatments already being covered. These are the types of questions that are often difficult to answer on the basis of the clinical trials used to support a medication's initial approval, which are generally designed to evaluate a medication's efficacy, safety, and tolerability in narrowly defined patient populations. Consequently, in order to answer the questions most relevant to key stakeholders (i.e., regulators, patients, and clinicians), it is important to continue to examine a medication's impact and characteristics after it has received regulatory approval. Such studies vary in their purpose, scope, and methodology. In this chapter, we review the types of questions most likely to be investigated after regulatory approval, the methods generally used to investigate them, and the characteristics typically considered when prioritizing the allocation of resources.

Indexed as

Drug ApprovalDrug DevelopmentHumansPhase 4 trialsPost-approval research

Identifiers

PMID36928849

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.