Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39207596›Full record

ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2025

Insufficient compliance of the German Therapeutic Products Advertising Act in product catalogues of online pharmacies.

Lara Barlage, Roland Seifert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Substantial non-compliance of online pharmacy catalogues with guidelines.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025
    Article
  3. Legal and scientific deficiencies of drug advertisements on German television.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025
    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

2 authors.

Lara BarlageInstitute of Pharmacology, Hannover Medical School, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Roland SeifertInstitute of Pharmacology, Hannover Medical School, 30625, Hannover, Germany. seifert.roland@mh-hannover.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The importance of ordering drugs from online pharmacies in Germany is increasing constantly. At the same time, there are many online pharmacies that try to increase their own market share through advertising. In Germany, the advertising of drugs is regulated by the Therapeutic Products Advertising Act (Heilmittelwerbegesetz (HWG)) and must therefore also be complied with by online pharmacies in their product catalogues. One important purpose of the HWG is to protect consumers by ensuring that they are presented with all necessary medical-pharmacological information about the advertised product. This paper examines the implementation of as well as the compliance with Section 4 of the HWG in the product catalogues of two online pharmacies. For this purpose, the spring/summer catalogue of 2023 was considered in the allergy, cold and gastrointestinal tract categories, resulting in the inclusion of 143 drugs from online pharmacy 1 (OP1) and 102 drugs from online pharmacy 2 (OP2) for the analysis. The information on the drugs was taken from the respective catalogue and the pharmaceutical index 'Gelbe Liste', collected in tabular form and was encoded. Subsequently, the required mandatory information according to Section 4 was checked by comparing the collected information with the information from the package leaflet. The analysis revealed that both catalogues insufficiently complied with Section 4 of the HWG. OP1 complied with 75% of the mandatory information required under Section 4 of the HWG and OP2 with 64%. In the OP1 catalogue, there is no indication for 6% of the drugs and no specification for 29% of the traditionally registered drugs. In addition, the mandatory notice on risks and adverse effects in the OP1 catalogue is not presented in a consumer-friendly way. In the OP2 catalogue, further concerns about the compliance with the HWG were raised due to the missing indication for 17% of the drugs, no warning for 64% of the ethanol-containing drugs and no active ingredient for 31% of the monopreparations. The insufficient compliance with the HWG in the product catalogues of OP1 and OP2 means that consumer protection as a stated objective of the HWG cannot be guaranteed. Advertising for drugs should only be possible under the condition that the content of the advertisement complies with the HWG. Insufficient compliance, as in the product catalogue of OP1 and OP2, should be prohibited as it directly contradicts the law's objective.

Indexed as

AdvertisingPharmaceutical Services, OnlinePharmaciesGermanyHumansAdvertisementDrug advertisingLaw reviewOnline pharmacyPharmacy reviewPubmed.govSelf-medicationTherapeutic Products Advertising Act (Drugs Advertising Law)

Identifiers

PMID39207596
PMCPMC11825602

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.