Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42135834›Full record

ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2026

A portrait of commissioned literature: connecting the dots between medical education and communication companies, authors, funders and publishers.

Maud Bernisson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2026. 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

1 author.

Maud BernissonLaboratoire Interdisciplinaire Sciences Innovations Sociétés (LISIS), Centre National de La Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Institut National de Recherche Pour L'Agriculture (INRAE), Université Gustave Eiffel, Université Paris-Est Marne-La-Vallée, Cité Descartes, 5 Boulevard Descartes, Marne-La-Vallée Cedex 02, 77454, Champs-Sur-Marne, France. maud.bernisson@cnrs.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-1725-8176

Funding

European Research Council 951393
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical education and communication companies (MECCs) are key actors in the production of commissioned publications. Analyzing publications that acknowledge medical writing offers a broad overview of their role, which is scarce in the literature. The reason is that activities related to industry-funded research are highly opaque, which makes access to this information particularly hard, and related analyses scarce. This article offers a novel approach to collecting, and thus, analyzing data. It maps how MECCs, funders, authors, and publishers organize to produce this literature and identifies risks of research integrity breaches.

methodsThe database contains the metadata of 29 911 commissioned papers collected from Web of Science (WoS). All articles involving medical writing were collected if they mentioned "medical writing" in WoS, if they were published by MECCs websites, and if they were listed in publication trackers (documents that list the publications of companies, found on the Industry Documents Library (IDL)). The metadata were collected semi-automatically (manually and with R). Reference lists were built to extract MECCs from acknowledgments and harmonize organizations' names. The analysis maps the relationships among MECCs, authors, funders, and publishers and shows how they connect.

resultsIn contrast with pharmaceutical companies and research institutes, only 33.6% of MECCs are listed in the bylines and even less (18%) are acknowledged in the publications found on their websites and on the Industry Documents Library. Even though they provide writing, MECCs are usually not considered as authors. Medical writing is a flourishing business and MECCs are key actors. Only a few sponsors (5.5%) outsource medical writing to many MECCs, and a few MECCs (7.7%) have a high number of clients. The medical writing market is thus very competitive and can benefit sponsors. MECCs sometimes publish in journals that are owned by their parent or sister companies. The business model of the publishers largely benefits from medical writing by publishing their product, and sometimes providing it as a service.

conclusionsThe database presented in this article offers new routes to explore the key role of MECCs in industry-funded research and to further assess the commissioned literature and its impacts on biomedical science and research integrity.

Indexed as

AuthorshipIndustry-funded researchMedical writing

Identifiers

PMID42135834
PMCPMC13177878

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.