Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27955710›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2016

Quantitative evaluation of essential medicines lists: the South African case study.

Velisha Ann Perumal-Pillay, Fatima Suleman

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Drawing lessons from the standard treatment guidelines and essential medicines list concept in South Africa as the country moves towards national health insurance.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

2 authors.

Velisha Ann Perumal-PillayDiscipline of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Health Sciences, Westville Campus, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X54001, Durban, 4000, South Africa. perumalv@ukzn.ac.za.
Fatima SulemanDiscipline of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Health Sciences, Westville Campus, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X54001, Durban, 4000, South Africa.

Funding

ENHANCING, TRAINING, RESEARCH CAPACITY AND EXPERTISE IN HIV CARE-ENTREER24TW008863 · FIC · UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU-NATAL · PI BOBAT, RAZIYA, HAMMER, SCOTT M · 2010 to 2015
$8.6M
FIC NIH HHS R24 TW008863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe South African (SA) health system has employed an Essential Medicines List (EML) with Standard Treatment Guidelines (STGs) since 1996. To date no studies have reported the changes in SA STG/EMLs. This study describes these changes over time (1996-2013) and compares latest SA STG/EMLs with the latest World Health Organization (WHO) Model EMLs to assess alignment of these lists.

methodsA quantitative evaluation of SA STGs/EMLs at 2 levels of healthcare was performed to assess changes in the number and ratio of molecules, dosage forms, and additions and deletions of medicines. The most recent WHO EMLs (18th list, 4th list for children) and 2012 priority life-saving medicines for women and children (PMWC) list were compared to the most recent available SA STG/EMLs (Primary Health Care (PHC 2008), Adult Hospital 2012, and Paediatric Hospital 2013) at the time of the research.

resultsThe number of molecules over the years increased for PHC STG/EMLs but decreased slightly for Adult and Paediatric hospital STG/EMLs. The most additions and deletions over time occurred in the Adult hospital level STG/EML (27 in 2006 and 44 in 2012). A comparison between the most recent SA STG/EMLs and WHO Model EML (18th list) showed that a total of 112 medicines were absent on all SA STG/EMLs. A comparison of medicines for children between the 2013 SA Paediatric Hospital level STG/EML and PMWC indicated that these lists were somewhat aligned for most conditions as only 3 of 14 medicines and 11 of 20 vaccines were absent from SA STG/EMLs.

conclusionThis is the first study in SA to investigate changes in National EMLs over time in relation to molecules, dosage forms and therapeutic classes. It is also the first to compare the latest SA STG/EMLs to the WHO Model lists. The results therefore provide insight into the trends and SA STG/EML processes over time.

Indexed as

Drugs, EssentialPharmacopoeias as TopicHumansQualitative ResearchSouth AfricaWorld Health OrganizationDrugs, EssentialEssential medicinesEssential medicines listsHealth systems researchPriority medicinesStandard treatment guidelines

Identifiers

PMID27955710
PMCPMC5154091

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.