A booth on the conference floor. Panels on the wall, posters on the table, a single board that makes a passing physician stop. Part III, Chapter 3 covers exactly this: posters and exhibition panels shown at academic conference venues. The text itself is brief. But brevity does not mean the rules are loose. Folded into that brevity is an assignment — the writer must apply the spirit of the whole creation guide and judge for themselves.
The chapter comes down to two points. First, the panel must be built according to the spirit of whichever creation-guide chapter its content actually belongs to. Second, reference information follows the rules of Part I, Chapter 3 (the Specific-Item Product Information Summary), section 2-(8). And the package insert (DI) must be easy to consult inside the booth. That is all.
01Why "according to the content"
An exhibition panel is a medium with no fixed shape. Some merely display the product name in large type, like a name-only advertisement. Others line up clinical-trial figures and argue the product's features, like a product information summary. Some confine themselves to explaining a disease. Handing down a single self-contained article "for posters and panels" would simply fail to fit. The discipline is decided not by the name of the medium but by what is written on it — that is the meaning of "build it according to the spirit of the applicable chapter."
This is a plain extension of the foreword's spirit. The foreword states that the guide sets out basic matters rather than covering everything, and that areas left unwritten still fall under the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Act, the Fair Advertising Standards, the sales-information-provision activity guideline, and the JPMA Code. The fact that the manual does not spell out "make posters like this" line by line does not mean freedom. The opposite: the writer must work out what their panel effectively amounts to, and shoulder the constraints of the nearest chapter themselves.
Reading the panel's content for what it is
The clue for judgment is what kind of material the display is. If it carries concrete results, features, and data to speak about one's own product, the spirit of the product information summary — especially the specific-item version — applies. Never exceed the approved scope by a single character; if you write efficacy, show safety at equal or greater prominence; show sources and trial design. Every item of Chapter 1's basic considerations, the foundation, comes down onto the panel intact.
Panel content
Spirit to follow
Centered on product name/logo, no efficacy or safety claims
Treated like a name-only advertisement (avoid implying indication or dosage)
Carries clinical results, features, and data about one's own product
Spirit of the (specific-item) product information summary (all of Chapter 1 + approved scope, balance, sources)
Mainly explains a disease
Spirit of disease-explanation materials (avoid steering toward a specific drug; stop at the therapeutic-class name)
02Reference information — the front line against "true but misleading"
For the handling of reference information, this chapter defers entirely to Part I, Chapter 3, section 2-(8) of the specific-item product information summary. Reference information means secondary material such as results within the approved indication, or the pharmacological action that underpins it. The trouble is that such information "is factual, yet depending on placement can look like the core of the approval."
So the specific-item rules require that reference information not be placed on the cover or the pages immediately following it, not exceed one quarter of the printed area excluding the cover and the DI, and carry no supervisor's commentary. Applying this to an exhibition panel means reference information must not sit where a visitor's eye lands first, nor occupy the largest share of the surface.
One and the same piece of data forms a different image depending on the section it sits in and the place it is put. Displayed large in the center as the main basis of approval, it looks like "the reason this works"; tucked in a corner, labeled "reference information" in small type, it reads as a secondary clue. Even without writing anything false, giving a wrong impression through placement breaches the foreword's "duty not to mislead." Isolating reference information is a structural device that closes this trap of presentation.
The quantitative fence of one quarter
The ceiling "reference information up to one quarter of the surface" is a quantitative fence, not a qualitative prohibition. Why bind it by quantity? If information that is not the core of approval fills half the surface, the weighting a visitor takes away is distorted even if every spot is annotated "reference information." Area sends a silent message. The quantitative cap is the brake that keeps that silent message from stepping past the approved scope.
03Making the DI easy to consult inside the booth
The other explicit requirement is to keep the package insert readily consultable inside the booth. This implements the foreword's positioning: product information summaries and the like complement the package insert, and the original authority is the approved content. The panel is not the original. It is only a window onto approved information. So when a visitor wants to check "what exactly are the contraindications, warnings, and dosage," the original must be within immediate reach.
The same requirement recurs for presentation content and lecture-record collections. The medium changes, but the principle does not: the material sits below the package insert and must never cut off the route back to the original. Whether by tablet or by a printed package insert, the right approach is to provide a path that lets the visitor consult it without leaving the booth.
04The restraint the exhibition setting demands
A conference booth is a place where many visitors pass through in a short time. A momentary visual impression carries weight. For that very reason, overemphasis through visual effects, or a layout that pushes safety aside and enlarges efficacy alone, works especially well here — and is especially dangerous. Because the text is short, the writer bears the responsibility of applying Chapter 1's spirit with their own hands: the balance of efficacy and safety, the ban on exaggeration and misleading, scientific grounding with fairness and objectivity.
The related thinking is continuous with the Fair Advertising Standards (guide to the Fair Advertising Standards) and the JPMA Code (guide to the JPMA Code). The thinner the wording in a given area, the more one needs the posture of returning to these higher norms to judge.
In closing
The chapter on conference posters and exhibition panels gives no detailed procedure of its own; instead it entrusts judgment to the writer. What is entrusted is not freedom but responsibility. Work out what the panel's content amounts to, shoulder the constraints of the nearest chapter, isolate reference information exactly as the specific-item summary requires, and secure a route to the package insert inside the booth.
Behind the short text lies the same question that runs through the entire creation guide. Is this accurate? Does it avoid misleading? Is the road back to the original left open? Even a single exhibition board lives by these three questions.
Case studies — the "it isn't written, so…" mindset, and how each lands
Congress booth exhibits operate in a world of rapid visual impressions. The provision for this format is short — and the shorter the text, the larger the apparent space for "it isn't written." The four scenarios below cover supplementary-information positioning, data selection, and the DI-access requirement.
GRAY 1 — Straying from the spirit (untouched by the wording, but against the foreword's spirit)
The scheme: "I'll follow the Part I Chapter 3 rules for supplementary information: keep it under one quarter of total space, no supervisor commentary, label every panel 'supplementary.' But I'll make the largest, most central panel in the booth the supplementary one, and put the approved primary-endpoint panel to the side. All conditions are met."
Verdict: GRAY 1. The numerical ceiling and labelling duty are satisfied on paper. But the placement principle — not putting supplementary information in the leading position — applies to congress booths by analogy to the position restrictions in product information materials. In a booth where visitors spend seconds scanning, the largest and most central panel determines what impression they form. Making supplementary content the visual anchor while pushing the approved primary results to the periphery makes supplementary information the centre of the exhibit, regardless of how the area is divided on paper. The spirit violation is real even if the letter is met.
GRAY 2 — Exploiting the gap (deliberately working a loophole to invite misreading)
The scheme: "The primary endpoint result shows a modest difference. A post-hoc subgroup analysis shows a much more impressive gap. I'll put the subgroup result at the centre of the 'Clinical Results' panel and place the primary endpoint result small, in the lower left. Both are within-approval data, so I have editorial discretion over emphasis."
Verdict: GRAY 2. When an exhibit panel discusses product clinical data, the Chapter 1 fundamental guidelines apply — including the requirement that pre-specified primary endpoints and post-hoc exploratory subgroup analyses be treated according to their different evidentiary weights. Placing a post-hoc subgroup result as the headline and burying the pre-specified primary result is selective extraction, the very practice the fundamental guidelines prohibit. Both data points may be within-approval data, but "within approval" does not grant freedom to invert their scientific hierarchy in the presentation.
GRAY 3 — Violating higher norms (arguably "not in the text," yet almost certainly out under the PMD Act, Fair Advertising Standards, and the JPMA Code)
The scheme: "The one-quarter supplementary ceiling is hard to apply to booth floor space. We have 6 product-information panels and 4 supplementary panels — 40% by panel count. But if I measure wall area, it's also over a quarter. Can I just make sure the supplementary panel count is fewer than the main panels? That gets us to below half."
Verdict: GRAY 3. The purpose of the one-quarter ceiling is that supplementary information must not occupy a weight — in any reasonable measure of proportion — that causes visitors to treat it as primary evidence. Whether measured by panel count or wall area, 40% exceeds that threshold. Using ambiguity about the measurement method to justify pushing past the ceiling in practical terms violates the Fair Advertising Standards and the JPMA Code, both of which assess promotional materials by the impression they create. "It is hard to measure" is a booth-design problem, not a defence.
BLACK — Breaching the explicit text (a plain violation of the provision itself)
The scheme: "We don't have enough tablets to show the DI at every station in the booth. We'll give visitors an MR business card with the instruction 'contact us if you need the package insert.' That provides a path to the DI and satisfies the access requirement."
Verdict: BLACK. "Easily accessible within the booth" means the visitor can reach the DI while standing at the booth — not that they can initiate a contact process that might result in receiving it later. A business card is not a DI access mechanism; it is a deferred referral. The requirement exists so that a visitor who has a question about warnings, contraindications, or dosage can verify the approved labelling on the spot. A post-visit contact channel does not fulfil this. Insufficient tablet provision is an operational issue that requires more tablets, not an alternative access method.
Improper intent by implication — three scopes of "insinuating" without stating it
Conference posters and exhibition panels are seen by many clinicians in a short time. The visual design that stops them, the selection and arrangement of displayed information, and the context of the booth as a whole can — through a single word, an adjacent pair of figures, and the spatial layout of the entire exhibit — quietly build expectations that exceed the approved indication.
Implication 1 — Local: carried in a single word or sentence
How it is built: "A single line is appended to the references section of the poster: 'Consistent results observed in subgroup analysis (high-risk patients, n=180).' The citation is accurate; the body of the poster does not mention this analysis."
Intent that can be read: The mention of a subgroup analysis implies that the primary endpoint result holds in high-risk patients. Subgroup analyses are exploratory and do not carry the same evidential weight as pre-specified primary outcomes, but the single appended line erases that distinction.
Verdict: A reference to exploratory findings, presented without an evidence-hierarchy label, is read as equivalent to primary outcome data. The 'References' section heading lends authority to the information and buries the limitations of the subgroup analysis (statistical power, multiplicity). Exploratory analyses must be clearly distinguished from primary analyses, and the exploratory nature must be explicitly stated.
Implication 2 — Adjacent: read across neighboring clauses
How it is built: "Directly below a bar chart of primary endpoint response rates, a line graph showing patient-reported outcome (PRO) improvement is placed. The two graphs are separated only by a thin grey rule. PROs were pre-specified secondary endpoints."
Intent that can be read: A PRO improvement graph placed immediately below a primary-endpoint success graph implies that the PRO results are also core efficacy evidence. The secondary status of the PRO is visually indistinguishable.
Verdict: Adjacent placement of graphs creates an impression of evidential equivalence. Even on conference posters, the visual distinction between primary and secondary endpoints is required; a thin rule is insufficient. Each graph must carry a label explicitly identifying its endpoint tier ('Primary,' 'Secondary,' etc.).
Implication 3 — Whole-context: arising from the document as a whole
How it is built: "The entire booth is designed as a 'Disease Awareness Corner.' Wall panels cover disease mechanisms for the approved indication. At the back of the booth, a 'Latest Evidence' section displays posters from exploratory studies using an unapproved dose, labelled 'Academic Reference Information.'"
Intent that can be read: By raising two neutral flags — 'disease awareness' and 'academic information' — the booth legitimizes the circulation of off-label dose research as scientific reference. Visitors flow naturally from the disease-awareness zone to the off-label research posters.
Verdict: The spatial design of the booth wraps the provision of off-label information in an academic framing that legitimizes it. The Guidelines require that exhibit content comply with the rules appropriate to its nature; circulating off-label information under the 'academic' label falls within regulatory scope. Exploratory studies on unapproved doses may only be provided in response to an unsolicited inquiry from a physician — not proactively through an exhibition structure.