ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2014
The evolution of Reference Drug Lists and Clinical Practice Guidelines in the public health system of a middle-income country.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2014. 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.
- Medicines policy, access and use in Mexico: a systematic literature review 2000-2022.Drugs in context · 2024Review
- The case for an essential medicines list for Canada.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe aims were to analyze the dynamics of the medicines formulary in a middle-income country and to analyze the concordance of the included medicines with the national Clinical Practices Guidelines (CPG).
methodsMedicines and their indications of use included in the Mexican Reference Drug List (Mex-RDL) from 1996 to 2013 were analyzed. The top 10 indications with the highest number of medicines in 2013 were analyzed retrospectively until 1996 in order to identify the increase in the number of medicines to treat each one, as well as the progressive specificity of the indication according to the International statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD-10). The concordance between the CPG and medicines approved for the top 10 indications was studied.
resultsThe number of medicines included in the Mex-RDL kept constantly growing from 454 drugs in 1996 to 811 in 2013. Up to 26.3% of these medicines were approved to treat only 10 indications (1.5% of all possible indications of use). Many of these new medicines had been approved for more and more specific indications, while the oldest ones had been approved for general indications. Up to 27.6% of the medicines approved for these top 10 indications do not appear in the updated recommendations of the specific CPG for those indications.
conclusionsDuring the last 18 years, the new medicines and indications included in the Mex-RDL were redundant and concentrated into few similar clinical conditions. This is a factor that promotes an irrational use of these medicines and, thus, unnecessarily raises the price of health care, undermines the quality of the health system and probably increases the uncertainty of treatments.
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.