ReviewPharmaceutical medicine2020
Evolving Communication with Healthcare Professionals in the Pharmaceutical Space: Current Trends and Future Perspectives.
Review in Pharmaceutical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Evolution of Medical Affairs Central Teams: Shaping Strategic Action and Driving Healthcare Transformation Through Scientific Interaction.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2026Article
- Visionary Health Architects and Leaders: The Strategic Role of Medical Advisors in Modern Pharma.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2025Review
- Data-enriched edible pharmaceuticals (DEEPs): Patients' preferences, perceptions, and acceptability of new dosage forms and their digital aspects - An interview study.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2022Article
- Medical Affairs and Innovative Medicinal Product Strategy Development.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2022Review
- Digital Transformation in Medical Affairs Sparked by the Pandemic: Insights and Learnings from COVID-19 Era and Beyond.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2022Review
- Early Access Provision for Innovative Medicinal Products in Oncology: Challenges and Opportunities.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The pharmaceutical industry is subject to complex regulations relating to the safety and efficacy of medicinal products, as well as pricing and reimbursement, added value, communication, and advertising. In addition, multiple stakeholders have evolved and now not only include physicians, but also payers, regulatory authorities, patients, and patient advocacy groups in the move toward an added value-based healthcare system. The advent of digitalization has also had a significant influence on how healthcare professionals and decision makers are identified and the most effective and preferred methods of communicating with them. This review will investigate how communication between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare professionals as well as other stakeholders is changing. It will then examine how pharmaceutical companies can employ the latest technologies to identify, target, and inform relevant parties about the medicinal product and its value at the time of launch and post-approval activities. This has been achieved by a review of the available literature and supported by a survey of industry representatives. The results indicate that an optimal communication strategy is likely to involve a combination of face-to-face interactions and an increased use of digital platforms with an emphasis on clinical data and scientific information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32557342What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.