Advisory board publications

An advisory board publication turns expert discussion and clinical experience into a manuscript, with a defined purpose, an explicit basis for consensus and transparent sponsorship.

Purpose and limits

Advisory board publications are peer-reviewed articles communicating clinical experience and recommendations on medicines, cosmetics, techniques or technologies, adding practical experience to clinical and epidemiological data. ¹ They may extend trial reports to particular settings or populations and help harmonise treatment where local products or practice differ. ¹ Recommendations may improve prescribing and outcomes when newer, more effective treatments are available, while increasing treatment choice creates a need for practical guidance. ¹

A 2014 practice account framed these publications as tools of medical marketing that could promote a product, change prescribing or improve management, including support for combined regimens. ¹ Topics change across the product lifecycle: local use or combinations after registration, later off-label experience and research proposals, improved use or replacement of older practices, adverse-effect management, and local experience worth sharing internationally. ²

A 2023 discussion took a more cautious view of sponsored consensus: useful insights can emerge without a company dictating what participants say, but sponsorship and company selection of experts create intrinsic bias. ^{3, 4, 5, 6} Financial interests and company involvement should be disclosed without assuming that disclosure eliminates the bias or that sponsorship invalidates every insight. ^{3, 7, 6} In that view, discussion framed around the best direction for a therapeutic area for one company cannot become unbiased afterwards, and advice on commercial direction or a clinical programme is unsuitable as publication material. ^{5, 8}

Publication planning

A publication should be planned before the board meets, with agreed objectives and named questions that the meeting is designed to resolve by consensus. ⁷ One practitioner opposed encouraging consensus manuscripts but considered advance planning essential when asked to undertake one; unplanned manuscripts arising afterwards could become a free-for-all. ^{7, 5} These projects were described as consistently difficult, with boundaries a central concern. ⁸

Alternatively, a board report can identify possible manuscript collaborations as next steps, with the publication’s rules agreed when that work begins. ⁵ A publication steering committee can interact with advisory boards to consider possible publications. ⁴

Writer’s role and independence

Writers need clinical-trial knowledge, an understanding of pharmaceutical marketing and product lifecycles, awareness of competitors and attention to partnership or positioning opportunities. ⁹ They also need confidence communicating with experts and medical and marketing managers, and public-speaking skills for guiding discussion or defining a suitable publication. ⁹ Responsibilities vary with experience and whether the writer works within an agency, a consulting network or independently. ⁹

Board opinions should remain objective and, wherever possible, rest on published literature or solid clinical experience; where data are missing, consensus based on group experience can be reported explicitly as such. ⁹ The writer or communications team must work with experts and sponsors towards a fair, balanced manuscript suitable for peer review and produced according to good publication practice. ⁹

In European projects, multilingual writers can follow local-language discussion of medical culture and practice and convey it in English to international readers. ⁹ The work calls for creativity and strong professional and interpersonal skills, linking current literature with experts’ years of clinical experience. ¹⁰

Before the meeting

A preparation checklist is:

1. Organise the literature review with the client, agreeing search strategy and keywords and identifying key references and recognised authors; careful listening to the client may matter more than imposing a personal view.
2. Define the consensus method. A standard method such as Delphi or a group-defined voting approach can be used, provided the decision process is clearly stated in the manuscript’s methods.
3. Define the article’s key messages and data, purpose and audience.
4. Invite members, book the room and agree which internal staff should attend, minimising sponsor personnel to help keep discussion objective.

¹¹

During the meeting

The writer’s activities can include:

1. Co-chairing to keep to the agenda and timing and ensure key points and conclusions are addressed.
2. Capturing each member’s actions and defining project roles and responsibilities.
3. Recording the experts’ key messages and the story that will form the publication’s backbone.
4. Checking literature or clearly defined experience supports each message.
5. Suggesting a draft title.
6. Suggesting a group name, especially for continuing publication activity, to improve recognition.
7. Recording minutes or action items, particularly where follow-up is needed.

¹²

After the meeting

Follow-through includes:

1. Write the minutes or key actions so every member knows what is required and when.
2. Follow up individually on actions and timelines.
3. Prepare a detailed outline, with key references for every point.
4. Obtain board and client agreement to the outline.
5. Write the first draft.
6. Manage revisions and client feedback, accepting criticism where appropriate and leading improvements where needed; ensure clients and authors know good publication practices.
7. Help the corresponding author assemble submission documentation, including conflict-of-interest forms.

¹³