Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39956857›Full record

ReviewPharmaceutical medicine2025

Professional Competencies and Capabilities in the Development of Medicines.

Peter D Stonier, Stuart A Jones

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pharmaceutical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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.

Peter D StonierCentre for Pharmaceutical Medicine Research (CPMR), Institute for Pharmaceutical Science, King's College London, London, UK. Peter.2.stonier@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID 0009-0009-9760-0793
Stuart A JonesCentre for Pharmaceutical Medicine Research (CPMR), Institute for Pharmaceutical Science, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The medicines development workforce has grown to be a multidisciplinary, interprofessional global body of broadly qualified graduate professionals working with and around the biopharmaceutical industry. To satisfy their demands of fitness for work, they must meet the changes and challenges of a rapidly developing technological and competitive field. This has generated a need for a harmonised, mutually recognised vocational programme of competencies and capabilities, based on an academic foundation, which for the adult learners in medicines development goes above and beyond their original medical and scientific specialisms. This review proposes that professional competencies and capabilities developed in pharmaceutical medicine, a specialty concerned with the discovery, development, evaluation, registration, monitoring, and commercialisation of medicines and medical products, provides a comprehensive solution for the educational needs in medicines development. To justify this proposition, it summarises the 60-year evolution of education and training in pharmaceutical medicine. It demonstrates how expanding the pharmaceutical medicine syllabus has aligned it with almost every aspect of the development process of modern medicines. This perspective proposes a vision for the future where pharmaceutical medicine professional competencies and capabilities fill the educational void for the medicines development workforce. This is suggested to pave the career path that supports the professional identity of physicians, scientists, and other professionals working to develop medicines.

Indexed as

Drug DevelopmentProfessional CompetenceClinical CompetenceCurriculumDrug IndustryHumans

Identifiers

PMID39956857
PMCPMC12245975

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.