3 ms·

> We collected data on NMEs approved between 1992 and 2004 and assigned each NME to an inventor country. I'm curious why they chose that time period. It was pu

> We collected data on NMEs approved between 1992 and 2004 and assigned each NME to an inventor country. I'm curious why they chose that time period. It was published in 2010. This omits 6 years between publication date of the article and the end of the range they chose and omitted all data prior to 1992. How would the data differ if you didn't choose this 12 year period? > although fewer drugs have been discovered worldwide over the past decade, most are therapeutically important. > Other large studies show that most new drugs add few if any clinical benefits over previously discovered drugs. These two statements contradict one another and the second one sounds awfully like moving the goal posts because the data doesn't support the conclusions.

chipotle_coyote 7y ago
> These two statements contradict one another and the second one sounds awfully like moving the goal posts because the data doesn't support the conclusions. The abstract I quoted reads: "Some leading analysts claim that although fewer drugs have been discovered worldwide over the past decade, most are therapeutically important. Yet a comprehensive data set of all new chemical entities approved between 1982 and 2003 shows that the United States never overtook Europe in research productivity, and that Europe in fact is pulling ahead of U.S. productivity. Other large studies show that most new drugs add few if any clinical benefits over previously discovered drugs." The first snippet you pulled out is prefaced by Some leading analysts claim. This study's meta-analysis concludes that those analysts are incorrect.