Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40353988›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2025

Benchmarking Medical Information Services Beyond the Unsolicited Requests: A phactMI Benchmarking Survey.

Michael J DeLuca, Rena Rai, Kirtida Pandya, Lillian Chavez, Prachee Satpute, Michael Rocco, Parul Shah, Jen Multari, Michael Cuozzo, Evelyn R Hermes-DeSantis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 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. Article
  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

10 authors.

Michael J DeLucaEversana, Boston, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5556-8312
Rena RaiJohnson & Johnson, Somerset, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7128-5881
Kirtida PandyaSandoz, Princeton, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-6381-960X
Lillian ChavezNovartis Corporation, East Hanover, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-7161-8790
Prachee SatputeGilead, San Francisco, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-5807-1012
Michael Rocco, Centerport, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6440-9671
Jen MultariBoehringer Ingelheim, Ingelheim Am Rhein, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-7100-0496
Michael CuozzoIncyte Corporation, Wilmington, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-4770-2489
Evelyn R Hermes-DeSantisPhactMI, 5931 NW 1st Place, Gainesville, FL, 32607, USA. Evelyn@phactMI.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5658-3899

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMedical Information has a strategic role that extends beyond inquiry management. The Pharma Collaboration for Transparent Medical Information (phactMI™) benchmarking survey of 35 US pharmaceutical companies was conducted to describe the current landscape and future opportunities of other services Medical Information could provide.

methodsIn July 2023, an electronic survey containing 57 closed and open-ended questions was distributed to phactMI member companies. The survey questions addressed demographics, medical review, development of materials, training, patient services, insights, and awareness.

resultsMedical Information is a significant contributor to the medical review of promotional healthcare provider materials (51%), patient materials (52%), and non-promotional medical materials (45%). Medical Information ensures the accuracy of medical information, fact checks and validates claim accuracy. Fifty percent of the respondents are responsible for reviewing and/or contributing to Medical Affairs material for Field Medical. Additionally, Medical Information trains both Field Medical and Sales teams on the Medical Information function, and to a lesser extent, disease state information. The majority (75%) of Medical Information Departments offer patient information. The vast majority (85%) produce and identify insights. Medical Directors, Field Medical, and Scientific Communications/ Publications often receive shared insights. Fewer individuals integrate insights with Field Medical and Medical Directors. Since 2018, Medical Information activities have seen a rise in advisory board presentations, insights reporting, publications, competitive intelligence, disease state education, surveillance, pathway submission, and labelling activities. Building awareness is still an important aspect of Medical Information and most focus on the development of their Medical Information website.

conclusionThe essential roles and activities of Medical Information Departments support products at every stage. Medical Information participates with multiple functions in evaluating medical materials and there is a growing trend of including Medical Information in the development and review of Medical Affairs materials. Medical Information has expanded its participation in pathway submissions, publications, and labeling activities. This benchmark for Medical Information can provide a potential best practice template for activities. For the future, the three areas to prioritize are: increasing the strategic value and KPIs of Medical Information, integrating and overseeing AI technology in the insights process, and improving internal visibility.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingDrug IndustryInformation ServicesHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesBenchmarkInsightsMedical informationMLRStrategy/planning

Identifiers

PMID40353988
PMCPMC12181120

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.