No abstract

No abstract

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -This paper seeks to clarify the use and limitations of the IMS National Disease and Therapeutic Index database, which is frequently used by scholars and courts to provide insights into pharmaceutical markets. Specifically, the paper aims to discuss appropriate and inappropriate uses of the data and details the limitations as a means of drawing generalizable conclusions. Design/methodology/approach -The paper takes the form of a literature review and critical evaluation of data and its uses. Findings -The IMS NDTI can provide useful insights into pharmaceutical markets, and also provide indications of potential trends or behaviors, but cannot be relied on for conclusive evidence of such phenomena in the marketplace. The NDTI has limitations that result from sampling and design issues, as well as the specific method by which the data are collected and coded. Although IMS is clear and forthright in addressing these limitations, many researchers have apparently chosen not to heed these cautions and have drawn unsupportable conclusions from NDTI data. Originality/value -The implications of drawing inappropriate conclusions from the NDTI database can range from the development of a crucial misunderstanding of the market by pharmaceutical marketers, the establishment of erroneous theories or assumptions into the literature or even the miscarriage of justice when the data are used as the basis for a legal judgment or claim. Users must be cautious when drawing any conclusions from these data.

No abstract

The body of knowledge regarding pharmaceutical products is dynamic and growing. Physicians have available to them a number of information sources for drug-related decision making in their practice. Historical and recent publications present medical literature and conferences as sources for information on pharmaceutical products. While historical reports have detailed large volumes of information William B. Lobb, RPh, MS, is a doctoral candidate in