ReviewClinical and translational science2024
How debunking biases in research and development decisions could lead to more equitable healthcare?
Review in Clinical and translational 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.
- Diversity in Translation: Equal Is Greater Than.Clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- How debunking biases in research and development decisions could lead to more equitable healthcare?Clinical and translational science · 2024Review
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
Decades of research have demonstrated that a variety of cognitive biases can affect our judgment and ability to make rational decisions in personal and professional environments. The lengthy, risky, and costly nature of pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) makes it vulnerable to biased decision-making. Moreover, cognitive biases can play a role in regulatory and clinical decision-making, the latter impacting diagnostic and treatment decisions in the therapeutic use of medicines. These inherent and/or institutionalized biases (e.g., in assumptions, data, or decision-making practices) could conceivably contribute to health inequities. In this mini-review, we provide a broad perspective on how cognitive biases can affect pharmaceutical R&D, regulatory evaluation, and therapeutic decision-making. Example approaches to mitigate the effect of common biases in the development, approval, and use of new therapeutics, such as quantitative decision criteria, multidisciplinary reviews, regulatory and treatment guidelines, and evidence-based clinical decision support systems are illustrated. Mitigating the impact of cognitive biases could increase pharma R&D efficiency, change the perspective and prioritization of unmet medical needs, increase representativeness and quality of evidence generated through clinical trials and real-world research, leading to higher quality insights and more effective medication use, and as such could eventually contribute to more equitable healthcare.
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.