ArticleThe Libyan journal of medicine2010
A comparative analysis of the Libyan national essential medicines list and the WHO model list of essential medicines.
Article in The Libyan journal of medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global norms, local institutions: a controlled comparative case study of WHO essential medicines policy adoption in Eastern Europe.Globalization and health · 2026Article
- Analysis of evidence supporting the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina reimbursement medicines lists: role of the WHO Essential Medicines List, Cochrane systematic reviews and technology assessment reports.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AIM AND
objectivesTo examine the concordance of the Libyan Pharmaceutical List of Essential Medicines (LPLEM) with the World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines 2009 (WMLEM 2009).
methodsThe concordance between generic medicines listed in the WMLEM 2009 (standard reference list) and the LPLEM 2006 (comparator list) was evaluated.
resultsThe total number of Basic Essential Medicines (BEMs) listed on the WMLEM 2009 was 347. The total number of generic medicines listed on the LPLEM was 584. Although the LPLEM has more listed medicines, only 270 (77.6%) of BEMs from the WMLEM were listed as available. However, 25 of the 77 missing medicines were deemed to have appropriate alternatives. A total of 52 medicines from the WMLEM 2009 were therefore missing from the LPLEM. Discrepancies compared to the WMLEM 2009 were identified in 15 out of 29 therapeutic sections. The highest discrepancy rate from the WMLEM 2009 was in the anti-infective section (35 missing medicines). Missing BEMs were noted in many subclassifications of the anti-infective medicines section, but omissions were particularly prevalent in the antibacterial medicines subsection (11 missing medicines). Antituberculosis medications had the highest discrepancy rate for antibacterial BEMs with one-third of the single medicines recommended by the WHO in the WMLEM 2009 not listed on the LPLEM. Of the 314 additional medicines on the LPLEM, 18 were deemed to be irrational non-essential medicines.
conclusionThe LPLEM does not include several essential medicines recommended by the WHO in the WMLEM 2009. These discrepancies may have serious public health implications for management of some infectious diseases, particularly, tuberculosis and HIV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.