Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37288951›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2023

Pharmaceutical policies: effects of policies regulating drug marketing.

Izabela Fulone, Cathal Cadogan, Silvio Barberato-Filho, Cristiane Cássia Bergamaschi, Lauren Giustti Mazzei, Luis Phillipe Lopes, Marcus Tolentino Silva, Luciane C Lopes

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pharmaceutical policies: effects of policies regulating drug marketing.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pharmaceutical policies: effects of regulating drug insurance schemes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Izabela FulonePharmaceutical Science Graduate Course, University of Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazil.
Cathal CadoganSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Silvio Barberato-FilhoPharmaceutical Science Graduate Course, University of Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazil.
Cristiane Cássia BergamaschiPharmaceutical Science Graduate Course, University of Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazil.
Lauren Giustti MazzeiPhysical Therapy, University of Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazil.
Luis Phillipe LopesPharmaceutical Science Graduate Course, University of Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazil.
Marcus Tolentino SilvaPharmaceutical Science Graduate Course, University of Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazil.
Luciane C LopesPharmaceutical Science Graduate Course, University of Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazil.
Universidade de Sorocaba · BRTrinity College Dublin · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe costs of developing new treatments and bringing them to the market are substantial. The pharmaceutical industry uses drug promotion to gain a competitive market share, and drive sale volumes and industry profitability. This involves disseminating information about new treatments to relevant targets. However, conflicts of interest can arise when profits are prioritised over patient care and its benefits. Drug promotion regulations are complex interventions that aim to prevent potential harm associated with these activities.

objectivesTo assess the effects of policies that regulate drug promotion on drug utilisation, coverage or access, healthcare utilisation, patient outcomes, adverse events and costs. SEARCH

methodsWe searched Epistemonikos for related reviews and their included studies. To find primary studies we searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, EconLit, Global Index Medicus, Virtual Health Library, INRUD Bibliography, two trial registries and two sources of grey literature. All databases and sources were searched in January 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include studies that assessed policies regulating drug promotion to consumers, healthcare professionals or regulators and third-party payers, or any combination of these groups.In this review we defined policies as laws, rules, guidelines, codes of practice, and financial or administrative orders made by governments, non-government organisations or private insurers. One of the following outcomes had to be reported: drug utilisation, coverage or access, healthcare utilisation, patient health outcomes, any adverse effects (unintended consequences), and costs. The study had to be a randomised or non-randomised trial, an interrupted time series analysis (ITS), a repeated measures (RM) study or a controlled before-after (CBA) study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed eligibility for inclusion of studies. When consensus was not reached, any disagreements were discussed with a third review author.  We planned to use the criteria suggested by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) to assess the risk of bias of included studies. For randomised trials, non-randomised trials, and CBA studies, we planned to estimate relative effects, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For dichotomous outcomes, we planned to report the risk ratio (RR) when possible and adjusted for baseline differences in the outcome measures. For ITS and RM, we planned to compute changes along two dimensions: change in level and change in slope. We planned to undertake a structured synthesis following EPOC guidance.  MAIN

resultsThe search yielded 4593 citations, and 13 studies were selected for full-text review. No study met the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS'

conclusionsWe sought to assess the effects of policies that regulate drug promotion on drug use, coverage or access, use of health services, patient outcomes, adverse events, and costs, however we did not find studies that met the review's inclusion criteria. As pharmaceutical policies that regulate drug promotion have untested effects, their impact, as well as their positive and negative influences, is currently only a matter of opinion, debate, informal or descriptive reporting. There is an urgent need to assess the effects of pharmaceutical policies that regulate drug promotion using well-conducted studies with high methodological rigour.

Indexed as

Drug and Narcotic ControlHealth ServicesHealth ExpendituresHealth PersonnelHumansMarketing

Identifiers

PMID37288951
PMCPMC10250001
OpenAlexW4379768304

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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 Socratic graph.