What Drives Adoption of National Labels as Global Reference Labels? A Case Study With the JPI
Therapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science, ISSN: 2168-4804, Vol: 52, Issue: 6, Page: 724-730
2018
- 1Citations
- 25Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations1
- Citation Indexes1
- Captures25
- Readers25
- 25
Article Description
Pharmaceutical labeling describes the safe and effective use of an approved product. Such information may be provided to consumers and/or health care physicians, and available online or in the pack in a variety of different formats according to local or regional regulations. Depending on the Health Authority (HA), content within a nationally approved label is generally reliant on two primary sources, a Company Core Data Sheet (CCDS), and the text approved by the Health Authority. Content in the nationally approved label may differ from the CCDS for a variety of reasons. In some countries, HAs require the Marketing Authorization Holder (MAH) to base their national label on an already approved label in a “major market” economy, only approving changes to the label when there is evidence that the major market has already approved. In this paper, we examine recent steps taken by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) and Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) to change labeling regulation in Japan in the context of the recently communicated national strategy, and assess whether this may impact on uptake of the J-PI as a reference label. Decreases in approval times by PMDA for new products, development of basic principles on multiregional clinical trials, greater transparency of content on the PMDA website, and increasing outreach to other Asian Agencies in recent years are highlighted. Labeling harmonization across regions, particularly of safety-related information, represents a key factor in promoting patient safety and risk communication, and is a worthy topic for future ICH consideration.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know