ArticleSouthern med review2010
A bibliometric study of publication patterns in access to medicines research in developing countries.
Article in Southern med review, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Access to continued-use medication among older adults, Brazil.Revista de saude publica · 2015Article
- Scientometric trends and knowledge maps of global health systems research.Health research policy and systems · 2014Review
- Article
- Article
- Trends in health policy and systems research over the past decade: still too little capacity in low-income countries.PloS one · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDeveloping countries face considerable problems in both accessing and properly utilizing essential medicines. One challenge to achieving these goals in resource-poor settings is a limited knowledge base as to what works to improve the selection, access and use of essential medicines including; ways to ensure affordable prices, increase sustainable financing, and strengthen reliable supply systems that are relevant to these settings. The objective of this study was to search the existing evidence base on access to medicine issues in developing countries and to assess publication patterns regarding the nature of topics studied, areas where gaps of information exist and the general trends in publications in this area.
methodsA PubMed search was conducted to retrieve publications on access to medicines in developing countries between 1999-2008. Our search strategy builds and expands on a search strategy developed for a Cochrane review to include a wider range of topics related to access to medicines and pharmaceutical policy. Retrieved articles were categorized by research topics, year of publication, study area, and country of residence of corresponding author to establish patterns in publications with respect to these categories over the past 10 years.
resultsMedicine selection, intellectual property rights, and monitoring and quality assurance were among the top topics studied over the last 10 years. Corresponding authors residing in high-income countries represented around 50% of all publications relative to low-income (18%) and middle-income countries (32%). Although an increasing trend in the number of publications per year was found, the increase was relatively small and variable over a 10-year period.
conclusionsThere are few peer-reviewed publications on access to medicines in developing countries with an average of only 76 publications per year over the past 10 years. Increasing the local evidence base as to what works to improve access to medicines in resource poor countries, particularly to the poor, is of the utmost priority to accelerating the achievement of global medicine goals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23093876PMC3471169What 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.