ArticleBulletin of the World Health Organization2015
Evaluating the quality and use of economic data in decisions about essential medicines.
Article in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Weak economic evidence for WHO's essential cancer medicines for Africa.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- An integrated framework to guide evidence-informed public health policymaking.Journal of public health policy · 2025Review
- The Political Economy of the World Health Organization Model Lists of Essential Medicines.The Milbank quarterly · 2025Article
- Medicines not recommended for inclusion in the who essential medicines list: a retrospective observational study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Overall survival benefits of cancer drugs in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, 2015-2021.BMJ global health · 2023Article
- Access to Medications for Cardiovascular Diseases in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.Circulation · 2016Review
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
objectiveTo evaluate the quality of economic data provided in applications to the World Health Organization (WHO) Model List of Essential Medicines and to evaluate the role of these data in decision-making by the expert committee that considers the applications.
methodsWe analysed applications submitted to the WHO Expert Committee on the Selection and Use of Essential Medicines between 2002 and 2013. The completeness of data on the price and cost-effectiveness of medicines was extracted from application documents and coded using a four-point scale. We recorded whether or not the expert committee discussed economic information and the outcomes of each application. Associations between the completeness of economic data and application outcomes were assessed using
findingsThe expert committee received 134 applications. Only eight applications (6%) included complete price data and economic evaluation data. Many applicants omitted or misinterpreted the economic evaluation section of the application form. Despite the lack of economic data, all applications were reviewed by the committee. There was no significant association between the completeness of economic information and application outcomes. The expert committee tried to address information gaps in applications by further review and analysis of data related to the application.
conclusionThe World Health Organization should revise the instructions to applicants on economic data requirements; develop new mechanisms to assist applicants in completing the application process; and define methods for the use of economic data in decision-making.
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.