ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2025
Written drug promotion from pharmaceutical companies to general practitioners: adherence to regulations over two decades.
Article in European journal of clinical 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.
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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePrevious studies have questioned the integrity of drug promotional material from the pharmaceutical industry to medical professionals. Herein, we present the result of repeated monitoring of adherence to legal requirements regulating marketing mailings from pharmaceutical companies to Norwegian general practitioners over three separate time periods in 2004, 2012 and 2023-24.
methodsThe claims made in the mailings were compared to the sources cited and evaluated in accordance with the governmental regulations. Pertinent information about conflicts of interest was registered and considered.
resultsA considerable decline in the number of mailings acquired over time was noted. The proportion of claims defined as correct and clinically relevant according to the legal definition was 48%, 56% and 78% in 2004, 2012 and 2023-24, respectively (p < 0.001 for trend). The most common deviations were claims with unclear or no clinical relevance, information extrapolated beyond the actual content of the referenced material, claims not covered in the cited reference, and general claims not providing any meaningful information about the drug. In some cases, the citation of sources was incomplete, or the reference unobtainable. The percentage of references with declared conflicts of interest was relatively stable at about 60% over the entire period.
conclusionConcomitant with a decline in the number of drug mailings aimed at general practitioners, there has been an increase in compliance with legislative measures regulating this activity. Nevertheless, there are still significant instances of deviations from the legal requirements, warranting skepticism.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.