ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2026
Physician Perceptions and Intentions in Response to Unsupportive Data for Off-label Uses: An Experimental Study with Primary Care Providers and Oncologists.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhysician awareness of evidence about off-label uses of prescription drugs can affect prescribing decisions. We tested approaches to disclosing unsupportive data about off-label uses and assessed disclosure impact on perceptions and intentions.
designPrimary care providers (PCPs) and oncologists viewed a brief report describing an off-label use of trazodone for insomnia (PCPs) or imiquimod for lentigo maligna (oncologists) and provided their perceptions of its Usefulness and Importance for prescribing decisions, and Intentions to search for additional information about the off-label use. We tested four variations (plus control) of a disclosure about the existence of unsupportive data for the off-label use: complete brief report (specific information about the off-label use), summary plus citation (specific information about the off-label use), citation (general information about the off-label use), and statement that other data may exist (general information about the off-label use).
resultsPhysicians who read any disclosure about the existence of unsupportive data for the off-label use rated the information as more Important for prescribing decisions than those receiving only information about the off-label use (control) (p = 0.01). PCPs reported specific data disclosures were more Useful for prescribing decisions (p < 0.001) than less specific disclosures. Oncologists found all disclosures about unsupportive data Useful but those who read disclosures stating unsupportive data may exist reported greater Intention to search for additional information about the off-label use of the drug (p = 0.03). Frequent off-label prescribing was associated with lower ratings for information Importance for prescribing decisions for both groups (p < 0.05). Prescribing the drug previously was associated with lower ratings of information Importance and Usefulness for prescribing decisions among PCPs (p < 0.001) and greater Intention to search for additional information about the drug (p < 0.001) among oncologists.
conclusionsDisclosures about unsupportive data for off-label uses are important and useful for prescribing decisions. Physicians who prescribe drugs for off-label uses more frequently or have prescribed the drug previously may discount the importance of the information. Tailoring the specificity of the disclosure to the needs of the audience may increase its effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41207990What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.