Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25793497›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

Systematic review on irrational use of medicines in China and Vietnam.

Wenhui Mao, Huyen Vu, Zening Xie, Wen Chen, Shenglan Tang

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
10.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

80 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 177 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Antibiotics Use Patterns in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review Analysis.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Wenhui MaoSchool of Public Health, Fudan University, P.O. Box 187, 138 Yi Xue Yuan Road, 200032, Shanghai, China.
Huyen VuDuke Global Health Institute, Duke University, 310 Trent Drive, 27708, Durham, NC, USA.
Zening XieSchool of Public Health, Fudan University, P.O. Box 187, 138 Yi Xue Yuan Road, 200032, Shanghai, China.
Wen ChenSchool of Public Health, Fudan University, P.O. Box 187, 138 Yi Xue Yuan Road, 200032, Shanghai, China; Collaborative Innovation Center of Social Risks Governance in Health.
Shenglan TangDuke Global Health Institute, Duke University, 310 Trent Drive, 27708, Durham, NC, USA; Duke Kunshan University, No. 8 Duke Avenue, 215316, Kunshan, Jiangsu Province, China.
Fudan University · CNDuke Institute for Health Innovation · USDuke Kunshan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIrrational use of medicines has been an issue concerned all over the world and the outlooks in developing countries are more severe. This study aimed to assess the different patterns of irrational use of medicines and its influential factors in China and Vietnam.

methodsA systematic review was performed on both published and grey literatures in English, Chinese and Vietnamese languages between 1993 and 2013 based on the WHO framework. Quality assessment was conducted on the basis of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Key indicators were analyzed to compare the irrational use of medicines in two countries.

resultsA total of 67 published works about China and 29 about Vietnam were included, the majority of which were cross-sectional prescription studies in both China and Vietnam. Irrational use of medicines was found in both the countries but issues with polypharmacy as well as overuse of antibiotics were more severe in Vietnam while overuse of injections was unique to China. Various patterns of irrational use were also indicated between urban and rural areas, and among different levels of hospitals. Rarely does literature focus on the analysis of influential factors of irrational use of medicines. While lack of proper knowledge from both providers and patients were the most recognized influential factors in both countries, economic incentives from pharmaceutical companies in China, and weak control and regulation over prescriptions in Vietnam were the main factors attributed to this issue.

conclusionSevere irrational use of medicines has been abundantly evidenced in both China and Vietnam, highlighting the importance of policy interventions on the issue. However, limited evidence on the appropriateness or its compliance (conformity) to guidelines of prescription has been found. In addition, convincing evidence on the underlying explanation of this issue is lacking, although economic incentives, health insurance coverage, and knowledge of service providers and users have been implied to be factors influencing irrational drug use.

Indexed as

Pharmaceutical PreparationsChinaHumansRisk FactorsVietnamPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID25793497
PMCPMC4368648
OpenAlexW1992383617

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.