ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2024
An Update from the Benchmark Survey of phactMI™ Member Companies on Providing Medical Information in the Digital Space.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Best Practices for Medical Information Global Response Documents from phactMI and MILE.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2026Article
- Benchmarking Medical Information Services Beyond the Unsolicited Requests: A phactMI Benchmarking Survey.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe Pharma Collaboration for Transparent Medical Information (phactMI™) benchmarking survey of 32 pharmaceutical companies describes the use of technology by Medical Information Departments.
methodsA survey was distributed to phactMI™ member companies in June 2022 and included 79 closed and open-ended questions. The survey's six sections included demographics, chatbot, social media, instant messaging applications, websites, and technology.
resultsMost Medical Information Departments have implemented innovative technology since 2019 with the main driver of remaining up-to-date. A total of 94% have a Medical Information website. Of those with a Medical Information website for healthcare professionals (HCPs), 97% allow for self-authentication. Most HCP-based websites have webforms for inquiries and 1-800 numbers, while only few offer video chat, chatbot, and the ability to identify local representatives. These websites also link to clinicaltrials.gov, publications, posters, and congress materials. Only 30% have a website for patients/caregivers. Most websites are discoverable by Google™. Awareness of Medical Information Websites occurs in a variety of ways, with most using multiple strategies to reach HCPs. There is wide variation in the technology platform used for the core functions of Medical Information.
conclusionAs technology continues to advance and omnichannel content remains a key objective, Medical Information needs to remain agile and transformative in their strategic and tactical planning and execution. Based on this benchmarking survey, the authors recommend that Medical Information Departments focus on expanding services for patients/caregivers, leverage digital innovations, expanding awareness, building efficiencies in workflow through technology, and continually improving website functionalities with innovative technologies.
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.