Every congress season, the influx of last-minute speaker decks exposes a familiar vulnerability in pharmaceutical communications. Speed, while necessary, brings competitor risk sharply into focus. Substantiation lapses, inconsistencies, and unsupported claims can inadvertently invite challenge under the 2024 ABPI Code Clauses 6 and 14. In this article, I outline where these risks crystallise most acutely and how teams can neutralise them prior to certification.
Issue in focus: When speed meets substantiation under ABPI Code Clauses 6 & 14
Congress season compresses review cycles, driving high-pressure approvals for medical presentations. This environment heightens risk under ABPI Code Clauses 6 and 14, where speed can undermine the substantiation and certification of promotional material.
Clause 6 and 14 demands that all information, claims, comparisons, and artwork in presentations are accurate, balanced, and fully substantiated. Every graph, table, and statement must be supported by robust evidence and referenced appropriately. Selective endpoints, unverified data, or unreferenced adjectives can quickly breach this standard—especially when last-minute deck amendments bypass standard review.
Clause 8 Certification requires that all promotional materials are certified by a signatory, either a UK registered medical practitioner or pharmacist. Certification records must be retained for at least three years, reinforcing the need for rigorous documentation.
In practice, competitor companies are the primary source of scrutiny. They routinely review congress presentations for evidence gaps, inconsistencies, or unsupported claims. As a UK Med Affairs Lead notes:
"The competitor challenge precedes regulator involvement—solid substantiation wins early."
Typical errors during “deck blitzes” include:
Unverified graphs or tables
Selective (cherry picking) or incomplete endpoints
Unreferenced or exaggerated adjectives
Inconsistent slide content post-amendment
Hanging comparisons
Ultimately, the pressure for speed must not override the discipline of evidence. Robust processes throughout the drafting cycle—not just at final certification—are essential to maintain compliance with ABPI Code Clauses and protect against competitor-driven exposure.
Common slide deck blitz errors: Where last-minute slides falter
Speaker deck preparation errors intensify under congress deadlines, with accuracy and fair comparison requirements (Clauses 6 and 14) most at risk. In the final hours, teams often bypass essential verification steps, exposing presentations to competitor scrutiny and challenge.
Unverified speaker graphs and tables: Visuals are frequently inserted without secondary source checks, risking misrepresentation or unsupported data. This directly breaches Clause 6 and 14’s demand for accuracy and substantiation.
Selective endpoints and data omission: Cherry-picking efficacy or safety endpoints, or omitting relevant comparators, undermines fair comparison requirements (Clause 6.1). Competitors are adept at identifying when context is missing or data is presented out of balance.
Inconsistent terminology and referencing: Slide edits made in haste often result in inconsistent language or missing references. This increases the profile of claims vulnerable to challenge, as competitors and reviewers look for discrepancies in terminology and citation.
Unreferenced adjectives and subjective language: Phrases such as “groundbreaking” or “significant” are often added without substantiation. These unreferenced qualifiers are red flags for competitor review and are frequently cited in PMCPA case precedents.
Fragmented review and slide inconsistency: Last-minute updates to visuals or copy rarely undergo full group review, leading to unaligned slides and unsupported claims. This fragmentation of responsibility amplifies risk, as critical errors can be missed.
“Consistent terminology and visual accuracy are as critical as correct data.” – Senior Code Signatory
Speaker deck rushes amplify exposure to unverified medical claims, inaccurate graphs and tables, and breaches of fair comparison requirements. Competitors systematically audit both the factual and visual integrity of congress materials, making late-stage errors highly visible.
Five checks for speed with safety: A rapid pre-certification guide
Under the pressure of congress deadlines, the risk of non-compliance with Clauses 6 and 14 of the ABPI Code increases sharply. To support presentation accuracy checks and ensure best practices speaker decks, a procedural mental checklist is essential. I would advocate that:
"A methodical mental checklist is essential every time."
This five-point method is designed for rapid, reliable review of speaker decks, minimising error and competitor risk prior to certification of promotional material:
Check every claim and visual: Cross-reference all statements, endpoints, adjectives, and graphical elements with official sources. Each data point must be substantiated and traceable.
Ensure statistical significance is presented and explained: Do not imply benefit where p-values are not robust. Make clear where the data is 'descriptive only'. Clearly state statistical outcomes and avoid over-interpretation.
Demand citation for every superlative or qualitative statement: If a claim cannot be directly referenced, remove it. Unsupported language is a common breach trigger under Clauses 6 and 14.
Audit slide consistency: Standardise language, font, labels, and data across the entire deck. Inconsistencies can undermine accuracy and invite competitor scrutiny.
Request a final 'cold-eye' review: Put yourself in the competitors shoes. This procedural step reduces subjectivity and levels review standards across teams.
Systematising these speed and accuracy congress checks ensures pre-certification reviews are procedural, not aspirational. Embedding this checklist into team workflows reduces high-risk errors and supports consistent compliance, even under tight timelines.
For mentors & final signatories: Building robust evidence culture early
Mentorship and signatory leadership are the foundation of a resilient evidence discipline marketing approach. In high-pressure environments, such as congress season, the tendency to rely on last-minute corrections exposes teams to unnecessary competitor scrutiny and risk under Clauses 6 and 14. Instead, robust evidence culture must be embedded from the outset—starting with planning and drafting, not just at the point of promotional material certification or final sign-off.
Mentors play a strategic role in setting expectations for substantiation, accuracy, and fair comparison. By signalling that thorough evidence review is non-negotiable, mentors raise team standards beyond minimum compliance. As one UK Pharma Medical Lead notes,
“Mentors who invest in evidence culture cut competitor risk down to size.”
This proactive leadership not only reduces error rates but also builds team confidence in rapid-turnaround scenarios.
Embedding ABPI Code requirements into routine processes—such as group review sessions and error log collation—creates feedback loops that systematically train teams out of risky habits. Data from internal audits show that promotional material approval rates improve by up to 20% where teams conduct planned error reviews monthly. This procedural muscle memory ensures that compliance with medical communications standards becomes second nature, rather than an afterthought.
Ultimately, the goal is to make last-minute fixes the exception, not the rule. When mentors and final signatories champion evidence-led behaviours, they not only reduce systemic error rates but also prevent complaint cycles often triggered by competitor monitoring. By fostering a culture of early, disciplined review, organisations can minimise risk, streamline promotional material certification, and sustain compliance excellence—even under the tightest deadlines.