Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40313616›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025

Different routes the same destination: a comparative study of antitrust regulation for pharmaceutical industry in the United States and China.

Jie Weng, Nailiang Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Jie WengCenter for Competition Law and Policy, School of Law, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China.
Nailiang LiuCenter for Competition Law and Policy, School of Law, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As a commercial trade with a public nature, the pharmaceutical industry is related to the interests of many consumers. It is important for many countries to carry out antitrust regulations in this industry, but there are differences in regulatory paths and specific practices (terms such as "anti-monopoly" and "antitrust" are used interchangeably, this study uses "antitrust" to maintain consistency in terminology). A key characteristic of the United States system is that courts play a leading role in interpreting and applying abstract antitrust laws, whereas Chinese administrative enforcement agencies directly apply specifically identified antitrust provisions for uniform regulation. Despite differences, pharmaceutical antitrust regulations in both countries ultimately aim to protect consumer welfare. This study examines the timelines of pharmaceutical antitrust regulation, the fields of regulation, the types of monopoly behavior and behavioral performances in two countries, and further analyses the differences in the regulatory paths and means, as well as the similarities and differences in the effects of regulation, in comparison with the current state of pharmaceutical antitrust regulation in the United States and China. The analysis serves as a valuable reference for the future development of pharmaceutical antitrust regulation in China.

Indexed as

anti-monopoly regulationantitrust regulationChinacomparative studypharmaceutical industryUnited States of America

Identifiers

PMID40313616
PMCPMC12045029

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.