corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 645

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Journal Article

Ziegler MG, Lew P, Singer BC.
The accuracy of drug information from pharmaceutical sales representatives.
JAMA 1995 Apr 26; 273:(16):1296-8


Abstract:

OBJECTIVE—To provide quantitative data about the accuracy of the information about drugs presented to physicians by pharmaceutical sales representatives.

DESIGN—One hundred six statements about drugs made during 13 presentations by pharmaceutical representatives were analyzed for accuracy. Statements were rated inaccurate if they contradicted the 1993 Physicians’ Desk Reference or material quoted or handed out by the sales representative.

SETTING—University teaching hospital.

RESULTS—Twelve (11%) of 106 statements about drugs were inaccurate. All 12 inaccurate statements were favorable toward the promoted drug, whereas 39 (49%) of 79 accurate statements were favorable (P = .005). None of 15 statements about competitors’ drugs were favorable, but all were accurate, significantly P < .001) differing from statements about promoted drugs. In a survey of 27 physicians who attended these presentations, seven (26%) recalled any false statement made by a pharmaceutical representative, and 10 (37%) said information from the representatives influenced the way they prescribed drugs.

CONCLUSIONS— Eleven percent of the statements made by pharmaceutical representatives about drugs contradicted information readily available to them. Physicians generally failed to recognize the inaccurate statements.

Keywords:
*content analysis United States sales representatives quality of information physicians in training students quality of prescribing ATTITUDES REGARDING PROMOTION: PHYSICIANS IN TRAINING EVALUATION OF PROMOTION: DETAILING INFLUENCE OF PROMOTION: PRESCRIBING, DRUG USE PROMOTION AS A SOURCE OF INFORMATION: PHYSICIANS IN TRAINING

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963