↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of Risk Versus Benefit Information in Direct-To-Consumer (DTC) Prescription Drug Television Advertisements

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, December 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Evaluation of Risk Versus Benefit Information in Direct-To-Consumer (DTC) Prescription Drug Television Advertisements
Published in
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, December 2018
DOI 10.1177/2168479017716719
Pubmed ID
Authors

Germin Fahim, Michael Toscani, Joseph A. Barone, Chris Wang, Shivani Gandhi

Abstract

The FDA's Presenting Risk Information draft guidance from May 2009 states that the time of risk versus benefit is a factor taken into consideration when evaluating audio and video direct-to-consumer (DTC) broadcasts. The objective of the study is to evaluate the proportion of risk narration on television (TV) advertisements in comparison to the actual proportion of serious adverse effects findings across select therapeutic areas. The study reviews prescription drug TV advertisements between the years 2010 and 2015 separated by therapeutic class. Indicators to assess risk versus benefit are as follows: total benefit time, total risk time, total ad time, percentage proportion of risk, and number of serious adverse effects (SAEs) listed in the package insert. The objective is establishing proportion of risk-to-benefit narration across therapeutic areas and the proportion of risk narration compared to the number of SAEs in the package insert. These outcomes will reflect whether TV advertisements abide by the "fair balance" rule and if the time spent on risk narrations is proportional to the number of SAEs across therapeutic areas. An analysis of risk versus benefit showed that there was a vast range of percentage differences in risk versus benefit narration across the products selected. The majority of the products narrated showed a 40% to 60% risk-to-benefit ratio. Six out of the 10 products evaluated communicated applicable black box warnings. There was variability among the SAE percentages presented between products. Lack of consistency exists between risks versus benefit proportions among different drug products.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 16%
Student > Master 3 16%
Researcher 3 16%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Other 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 6 32%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 11%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 4 21%
Unknown 6 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 November 2018.
All research outputs
#13,207,082
of 22,985,065 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science
#232
of 577 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,702
of 436,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science
#31
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,985,065 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 577 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 436,704 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.