ArticleCureus2026
Measuring the Impact of Medical Science Liaisons: A Global Cross-Sectional Survey of Evaluation Practices and Perceptions.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
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
introductionMedical science liaisons (MSLs) serve a critical role in pharmaceutical, biotechnology, medical device, diagnostics, and healthcare companies by facilitating scientific exchange with key opinion leaders (KOLs) and health care professionals (HCPs). Despite their growing strategic importance, evaluating MSL impact remains challenging due to the complexity of their responsibilities. This study investigates current practices for assessing MSL impact, explores how their value is defined, and examines the challenges in measuring MSL performance.
methodsA cross-sectional online survey was conducted, targeting MSLs, MSL managers/directors, MSL Excellence and Operations, executive management, and other medical affairs professionals. Participants were recruited via professional networks, social media, pharmaceutical industry conferences, online platforms dedicated to medical affairs, and posting on LinkedIn, resulting in a non-probability convenience sample. The survey comprised multiple-choice and Likert-scale questions covering KOL engagement impact scores, definitions of MSL value and impact, and challenges in performance, measurement, and assessment.
resultsA total of 1023 respondents participated. Geographically, the majority of respondents were based in the United States (56%), followed by Spain (6%), Brazil (5%), and Canada (5%), with additional contributions from Europe, Latin America, and other regions. Overall, 52% indicated that KOL engagement impact scores should be utilized as a performance metric. MSL value was most often defined as building and maintaining strong KOL relationships (27%), whereas MSL impact was most frequently linked to influencing clinical practice and improving patient care (46%). Key challenges included difficulty defining and measuring the quality of MSL activities (76%) and reliance on quantitative standards that do not reflect MSLs' value (61%). Only 40% reported that their organizations measure MSL impact, and 41% suggested that the assessment should combine individual achievements with team contributions. Furthermore, 67% considered measuring MSL performance "difficult" or "very difficult".
conclusionThis study highlights the challenges of measuring MSLs' impact and value. Many organizations continue to struggle with capturing the quality of MSL activities and their broader strategic contributions.
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.