Managed by NetworkPharma

Managed by

Facilitating Networking and Information Sharing amongst Pharmaceutical and MedComms, Medical Communications, Medical Education and Medical Publishing Specialists

This global initiative facilitates networking and dialogue amongst individuals working in and around the pharmaceutical industry and MedComms, focusing on specialist medical education, medical communications and medical publishing activities.
Why not sign up to our weekly newsletter and please, help spread the word amongst all relevant others.


  • Home
  • About us
  • Testimonials
  • Events
  • Useful Reading
  • In the News
  • Companies
  • Independents
  • Services
  • Special offers
  • Job Adverts
  • Twittering
  • Webcasts
  • Starting out
  • Weekly Newsletter
  • Weekly Comment
  • Survey data
  • Sponsors

  • MedComms Networking on Facebook

    MedComms Networking on Linkedin

    MedComms Networking on Twitter

    MedComms Networking on YouTube

    MedComms Networking is sponsored by:

    Many thanks to all the Sponsors of MedComms Networking


    Every Tuesday we send out the MedComms Networking email newsletter to subscribers. It includes brief commentary on what we're doing and planning, and highlights relevant news to encourage sharing of information, experiences and ideas and to stimulate discussion. The text and links included below, by definition, were accurate on the day of publication, but may then become outdated.

    MedComms Networking - 12 September 2017


    It's Peer Review Week and there's lots happening. Chris Winchester of Oxford PharmaGenesis sent in a guest contribution overnight from the Eighth International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication, which I've included below. Will this start a trend? Let me know if you'd like to contribute to this newsletter. Take it away, Chris...

    Peer Review Congress (follow #PRC8 on Twitter) is a once-every-four-years opportunity for journal editors, peer reviewers, publishers and researchers to debate and critically evaluate the evolving role of scholarly publishing in the advancement of science and medicine. Additionally, this week's conference in Chicago attracted a dozen or so representatives of pharmaceutical companies and communications agencies, and views of the industry are predominantly sceptical rather than hostile.

    It was good to see research findings from our industry showing that:

    * Pharmaceutical companies are disclosing the results of almost three quarters of clinical trials, whereas non-industry sponsors disclose less than half of their trials.

    See Baronikova S, Purvis J, Winchester C, Southam E, Beeso J, Panayi A. Disclosure of results of clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Presented at the Peer Review Congress (10-12 September 2017, Chicago, USA). (Accessed: 11 September 2017).

    * Reporting guidelines could be developed with input from publication professionals, an important group of end-users

    See Woolley K, Stretton S, Arnstein L. Transparency and completeness in the reporting of stakeholder involvement in the development and reporting of research reporting guidelines. Presented at the Peer Review Congress (10–12 September 2017, Chicago, USA). (accessed 11 September 2017).

    Research from academic researchers showed that:

    * Systematic reviews from industry are as high quality as academic systematic reviews methodologically (except in assessing the risk of bias) and are no more likely to report positive results or larger effect sizes (although they tend to report more positive conclusions).

    See Hansen C, Lundh A, Rasmussen K, Frandsen TF, Gotzsche P, and Hrobjartsson A. The influence of industry funding and other financial conflicts of interest on the outcomes and quality of systematic reviews. Presented at the Peer Review Congress (10–12 September 2017, Chicago, USA). (accessed 11 September 2017).

    * Industry studies were more likely than non-industry studies to have concordant results reported on a registry and in the final publication.

    See Kosa SD, Mbuagbaw L, Borg Debono V, Bhandari M, Dennis BB, Ene G, Leenus A, Shi D, Thabane M, Vanniyasingam T, Ye C, Yranon E, Zhang S, Thabane L. Discrepancies in reporting between trial publications and clinical trial registries in high-impact journals. Presented at the Peer Review Congress (10-12 September 2017, Chicago, USA). (accessed 11 September 2017).

    * Of trials for new neuropsychiatric drugs approved by the FDA after implementation of the FDA Amendments Act in 2007, 100 per cent were registered and 100 per cent were published.

    See Zou CX, Becker JE, Phillips AT, Krumholz HM, Miller JE, Ross JS. Impact of FDAAA on registration, results reporting and publication of neuropsychiatric clinical trials supporting FDA new drug approval, 2005-2014. Presented at the Peer Review Congress (10-12 September 2017, Chicago, USA). (accessed 11 September 2017).

    Enjoy your week. Remember details of all we're doing are always kept bang up-to-date at - please join in!


    Peter Llewellyn
    Managing Director, NetworkPharma Ltd
    Follow me on Twitter @NetworkPharma
    Join 3,000 international colleagues in the MedComms Networking Linkedin Group
    The information at is always bang up-to-date!


    Subscribe to the weekly MedComms Networking email newsletter here - it's entirely free of charge!

    This web site and associated activities are being managed by NetworkPharma Ltd, Magdalen Centre, The Oxford Science Park, Oxford, OX4 4GA, UK
    Telephone +44 (0) 1865 784390 Email:

    Our web sites

    [] [] [] []
    [] [] []
    [] [] []