Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

Forum

  1. Home
  2. PAAB Q&A
  3. Miscellaneous
  4. 621 - Has the PAAB ever considered providing review comments as annotations on submission documents, rather than an itemized review letter? This would seem to save both PAAB and Clients time.
The responses, guidance, and advisories provided by the Pharmaceutical Advertising Advisory Board (PAAB), including but not limited to those available through the PAAB Forum, the PAAB website, and any PAAB correspondences, are specifically intended to assist individuals navigating the PAAB preclearance system. Repurposing or reproducing this content without written consent from the PAAB Commissioner is strictly prohibited. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, use in machine learning or AI models.

621 - Has the PAAB ever considered providing review comments as annotations on submission documents, rather than an itemized review letter? This would seem to save both PAAB and Clients time.

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Miscellaneous
1 Posts 1 Posters 169 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • Jennifer CarrollJ Offline
    Jennifer CarrollJ Offline
    Jennifer Carroll
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    This was considered when we first created the eFile system for the very reason you suggested. On the surface, it appears to be a good idea, but it was deemed at the time not to be practical. Itemized correspondence letters appear to be a more efficient way (for clients and PAAB) to engage in the back-and-forth that frequently occurs during the review process. The copydeck would get quite crowded with the reasoning and counter-reasoning defending each party’s position. This would be true whether the comments appeared directly on the copydeck or as digital sticky notes. The lion’s share of the time use appears to be due to the back and forths. It might therefore be counter-productive to take a step which could impair either party’s ability to follow the flow of reasoning and counter-reasoning. Keep in mind that the reasoning or counter-reasoning in a single correspondence for a single comment can sometimes be multiple pages long. This was the thinking at the time. Years have passed and technology has evolved so feel free to reach out to me if you have ideas on how the system can be improved.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes


    • Login

    • Don't have an account? Register

    • Login or register to search.
    • First post
      Last post
    0
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups