ArticleDrug safety2014
A framework for assessing the economic value of pharmacovigilance in low- and middle-income countries.
Article in Drug safety, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Pharmacovigilance Systems in Developing Countries Using the WHO Pharmacovigilance Indicators.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2022Pooled it
- The Role of ISoP in the Advancement of Pharmacovigilance in Low-and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs).Drug safety · 2023Article
- Pharmacovigilance in developing countries (part II): a path forward.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2018Article
- Active Surveillance versus Spontaneous Reporting for First-Line Antiretroviral Medicines in Namibia: A Cost-Utility Analysis.Drug safety · 2016Article
- UTILISATION ANALYSIS OF ANTIHYPERTENSIVE DRUGS IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA FOR THE TIME-PERIOD 2013-2015.Materia socio-medica · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pharmacovigilance (PV) programs are an essential component of national healthcare systems. Well-functioning PV programs can improve population health by identifying and reducing medicines-related problems (MRPs). Many low- and middle-income countries lack functional PV systems, but this deficiency has not been described in terms of the potential economic value of strengthening PV systems. The assessment of economic value for PV can support rational decision making at the country level. We propose a framework for assessing the economic value of PV. We divide national PV systems into four levels: (1) no PV, (2) basic PV, (3) semi-functional PV, and (4) functional PV. These categories represent increasing levels of investment in PV capacity at the national or health facility level for all available medicines, including vaccines. The proposed framework can be used to estimate the costs of PV (including the value of investments to increase PV capacity and the costs of managing MRPs) and outcomes associated with PV (including improvements in morbidity, mortality, and quality of life as a result of the reduction in MRPs). The quantitative approach proposed for assessing costs and benefits uses a decision-analytic modeling framework that would estimate the value of the consequences of MRPs adjusted for their probability of occurrence. This allows the quantification of value using monetary outcomes (cost-benefit analysis), natural units (cost-effectiveness analysis), or mortality adjusted for quality of life or disability (cost-utility analysis). Evidence generated using this framework could assist policy makers, program managers, and donors in evaluating investments that aim to increase the capacity and efficiency of national and facility-level PV programs in low- and middle-income countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24550105What 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.