ArticleLa Tunisie medicale
Attitudes of ophthalmologists towards pharmaceutical promotion.
Article in La Tunisie medicale. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe interaction between physicians and pharmaceutical industry highlighted many issues lately concerning their influence on physician's attitude and their prescribing behavior.
aimTo evaluate the attitudes of Tunisian ophthalmologist towards pharmaceutical promotion.
methodsData was collected through an auto-administered anonymous questionnaire elaborated in French that was distributed to 160 ophthalmologists (residents and specialists) working in hospitals or private practices in four Tunisian governorates (Tunis, Sousse, Monastir and Sfax).
resultsOne hundred and two valid responses were received. Twenty-nine respondents (28.43%) estimated the number of visits by pharmaceutical representatives (PR) at 11 to 20 times during the last year. Most physicians considered guides (94%), drug samples (88%), articles (86%), stationery (81%), sponsorship of overseas conferences (72%) and international trips to symposia organized by pharmaceutical industries (58%), as appropriate gifts. Over 80% of doctors agreed that promotional activities by drug companies were appropriate. Accepting sponsorship from a pharmaceutical company for a partner to attend a meeting was considered inappropriate by 79% of ophthalmologists. Eighty-eight percent of the respondents agreed that receiving gifts will increase their prescription of the company's drug. However, they perceived themselves to be less influenced than their colleagues (p=0.011). Eighty-six percent of ophthalmologists reported training about how to interact with PR to be insufficient.
conclusionsDespite the role of PR in supporting research, ethical issues may arise through their interactions with healthcare professionals. Training about pharmaceutical promotion and appropriate ways to deal with it are lacking in Tunisian medical schools' curricula, leaving future doctors unprepared to deal with pharmaceutical influences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38445399PMC12377335What 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.