{"title":"孟加拉国药品宣传文献综述","authors":"F. Johora, M. Rahman","doi":"10.3329/BJP.V13I3.36752","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present research was conducted to evaluate the quality of pharmaceutical promotional literature. Indications was mentioned in 88.2% promotional literature and less than half (40.0, 33.9 and 38.9%) of these contains side effects, precautions and contraindications respectively. Among the provided information 67.3%, 16.5%, 19.5% and 24.0% matched with the BDNF/BNF respectively. Scientific articles (73.3%) were cited most followed by commercial online sources (15.5%), data on file (4.2%), regulatory body approval data (2.9%), product monograph (2.7%) and textbook/reference book (1.6%). Only half (50.2%) of these cited references were retrievable and no ‘data on file’ could be retrieved. Though most (73.2%) of the promotional claims were true, 13.7, 5.9, 4.6 and 2.6% were identified as false, exaggerated, ambiguous and controversial respectively. This revelation about the quality of promotional literature might an eye opener for the policy makers. More importantly, this may bring alertness among the physicians during interpretation of pharmaceutical promotion literature.","PeriodicalId":8719,"journal":{"name":"Bangladesh Journal of Pharmacology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3329/BJP.V13I3.36752","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Snapshot of the pharmaceutical promotional literature of Bangladesh: A critical review\",\"authors\":\"F. Johora, M. Rahman\",\"doi\":\"10.3329/BJP.V13I3.36752\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The present research was conducted to evaluate the quality of pharmaceutical promotional literature. Indications was mentioned in 88.2% promotional literature and less than half (40.0, 33.9 and 38.9%) of these contains side effects, precautions and contraindications respectively. Among the provided information 67.3%, 16.5%, 19.5% and 24.0% matched with the BDNF/BNF respectively. Scientific articles (73.3%) were cited most followed by commercial online sources (15.5%), data on file (4.2%), regulatory body approval data (2.9%), product monograph (2.7%) and textbook/reference book (1.6%). Only half (50.2%) of these cited references were retrievable and no ‘data on file’ could be retrieved. Though most (73.2%) of the promotional claims were true, 13.7, 5.9, 4.6 and 2.6% were identified as false, exaggerated, ambiguous and controversial respectively. This revelation about the quality of promotional literature might an eye opener for the policy makers. More importantly, this may bring alertness among the physicians during interpretation of pharmaceutical promotion literature.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8719,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bangladesh Journal of Pharmacology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-07-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3329/BJP.V13I3.36752\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bangladesh Journal of Pharmacology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3329/BJP.V13I3.36752\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bangladesh Journal of Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3329/BJP.V13I3.36752","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Snapshot of the pharmaceutical promotional literature of Bangladesh: A critical review
The present research was conducted to evaluate the quality of pharmaceutical promotional literature. Indications was mentioned in 88.2% promotional literature and less than half (40.0, 33.9 and 38.9%) of these contains side effects, precautions and contraindications respectively. Among the provided information 67.3%, 16.5%, 19.5% and 24.0% matched with the BDNF/BNF respectively. Scientific articles (73.3%) were cited most followed by commercial online sources (15.5%), data on file (4.2%), regulatory body approval data (2.9%), product monograph (2.7%) and textbook/reference book (1.6%). Only half (50.2%) of these cited references were retrievable and no ‘data on file’ could be retrieved. Though most (73.2%) of the promotional claims were true, 13.7, 5.9, 4.6 and 2.6% were identified as false, exaggerated, ambiguous and controversial respectively. This revelation about the quality of promotional literature might an eye opener for the policy makers. More importantly, this may bring alertness among the physicians during interpretation of pharmaceutical promotion literature.
期刊介绍:
Bangladesh Journal of Pharmacology (Bangladesh J Pharmacol) is an open access, video component, peer-reviewed journal of the Bangladesh Pharmacological Society (BDPS).
A scholarly publication is defined ''open access'' when there are no financial, legal or technical barriers to accessing it. Anyone can read, download, copy, distribute, print or use it in educational purpose within the legal agreements.
Peer review of a manuscript means the evaluation of research work by one or more people with similar competences. It can be open or blind. We do the single-blind peer review.
Our readers want to know the methodology used by the researchers which is very important to get the results. The video clip of one of the methodologies is prepared by the authors and submit it to publish.