Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38130474›Full record

ArticleResearch policy2023

The NBER Orange Book Dataset: A user's guide.

Maya Durvasula, C Scott Hemphill, Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, Bhaven Sampat, Heidi L Williams

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research policy, 2023. 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
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  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.

Maya DurvasulaDepartment of Economics, Stanford University, United States of America.
C Scott HemphillNYU School of Law, United States of America.
Lisa Larrimore OuelletteStanford Law School, United States of America.
Bhaven SampatDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Columbia University, United States of America.
Heidi L WilliamsDepartment of Economics, Stanford University, United States of America.

Funding

Understanding and Improving Healthcare Decision-Making and Outcomes for People Living with Alzheimer's Disease and Related DementiasP01AG005842 · NIA · NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH · PI KOSALI ILAYPERUMA SIMON · 1986 to 2026
$56.5M
NIA NIH HHS P01 AG005842
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper introduces a newly digitized, open-access version of the Food and Drug Administration's "Orange Book"-a linkage between approved small-molecule drugs and the patents that protect them. The Orange Book also reports any applicable regulatory exclusivity that prevents competitive entry. We summarize the Orange Book's coverage and discuss the opportunities and challenges associated with using these data for research. Empirical validations against various administrative datasets suggest that Orange Book records are, largely, complete and accurate. We conclude with a specific use case-calculating legal exclusivity periods for drugs-to highlight the types of choices that researchers must make when using this resource.

Indexed as

Drug patentsFDAIntellectual propertyOrange Book

Identifiers

PMID38130474
PMCPMC10731339

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.