Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39845745›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2025

'Piloting a framework for analysing the public contributions to R&D: new antibiotics in focus'.

Louise Schmidt, Ozren Sehic, Ursula Theuretzbacher, Daniel Fabian, Claudia Wild

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2025. 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. Review
  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.

Louise SchmidtAustrian Institute for Health Technology Assessment (AIHTA), Vienna, Austria.
Ozren SehicAustrian Institute for Health Technology Assessment (AIHTA), Vienna, Austria.
Ursula TheuretzbacherCenter for Anti-Infective Agents, Vienna, Austria.
Daniel FabianAustrian Institute for Health Technology Assessment (AIHTA), Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-2083-2207
Claudia WildAustrian Institute for Health Technology Assessment (AIHTA), Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1754-9422

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Within the context of increasing transparency around public contributions, a framework for reporting and analysing public contributions to research and development (R&D) was previously developed and is piloted here using the example of antibiotics. The aim of this work is to check whether the category system is feasible, to revise and adjust the granularity of the category system where necessary, and to expand the range of sources for detailed analyses. Methods: All antimicrobial medicinal products in development, discontinued and approved in the last 10 years were identified in the literature. Thereafter clinical trials and company information was searched generating a list of 56 compounds where primarily small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) were involved in antibiotics development. Information on clinical trials, university spinouts and public funding for SMEs was then gathered from various sources. The framework for classifying public contributions was then applied. Results: We found that around one-third of antibiotics are developed by SMEs. We identified numerous public funding sources for SMEs that develop antibiotics. At both early-stage and late-stage development, public research funding is the most common public funding reported by SMEs, ahead of other public sources like public equity funds, private-public partnerships and philanthropic sources. A deep-dive into one antibiotic drug, Venatorx, revealed public funds investment of approximately $655 million, dwarfing private investment funds. We found the classification framework generally practicable and we suggest recommendations to improve its granularity and applicability. Conclusion: In this paper we piloted and revised a framework that has been developed to classify types of public contributions to pharmaceutical products at different stages of development. The framework, together with work we have done on identifying sources for funding, can be applied to support pharmaceutical price negotiations that reflect the level of public contribution to product development.

Indexed as

antibacterial agentsAntibioticspharmaceuticalspublic return on public investments (PRoPI)R&D fundingresearch and development (R&D)transparency

Identifiers

PMID39845745
PMCPMC11753009

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.