Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28061899›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2017

Selection of essential medicines for South Africa - an analysis of in-depth interviews with national essential medicines list committee members.

Velisha Ann Perumal-Pillay, Fatima Suleman

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07763249 (Comparison Between Paravertebral Block and Epidural Block for the Management of Postoperative Pain in Patients Undergoing Thoracotomy and One-Lung Ventilation), which is not on this map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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.

NCT07763249 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Comparison Between Paravertebral Block and Epidural Block for the Management of Postoperative Pain in Patients Undergoing Thoracotomy and One-Lung Ventilation: A Prospective Non-inferiority Study.

TypeinterventionalSponsorHospital de Clinicas de Porto AlegreRan2026 to 2028Enrolled80ConditionsPostoperative PainArmsContinuous Thoracic Paravertebral Block, Continuous Thoracic Epidural Block
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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) public health system has employed an Essential Medicines List (EML) with Standard Treatment Guidelines (STGs) in the public sector since 1996. To date no studies have reported on the process of selection of essential medicines for SA EMLs and how this may have changed over time. This study reports on the decision making process for the selection of essential medicines for SA EMLs, over the years, as described by various members of the National Essential Medicines List Committee (NEMLC) and their task teams.

methodsQualitative in-depth interviews, guided by an interview questionnaire, were conducted with 11 members of the SA NEMLC and their task teams (both past and present members) during the period January - April 2015. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were then coded by the first author and verified by the second author before being reconciled and input into NVIVO, a qualitative software, to facilitate analysis of the data.

resultsThe interviews conducted suggest that the NEMLC process of medicine selection has been refined over the years. This together with the EML review process is now essentially predominantly an evidence based process where quality, safety and efficacy of a medicine is considered first followed by cost considerations which includes pharmacoeconomic evaluations, and pricing of medicines.

conclusionsThis is the first study in SA to report on how decisions are taken to include or exclude medicines on SA national EMLs and provides insight into the SA EML medicine selection, review and monitoring processes over time. The results show that the NEMLC has undergone tremendous transformation over the years. Whilst the membership of the committee largely remains unchanged, the committee has developed its policies and processes over the years. However there is still a need to strengthen the monitoring and evaluation aspects of the SA EML policy process.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDrugs, EssentialAdultAdvisory CommitteesCommittee MembershipFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPublic SectorSouth AfricaDrugs, EssentialEssential medicinesEssential medicines listsSelection of essential medicinesSouth AfricaStandard treatment guidelines

Identifiers

PMID28061899
PMCPMC5219715

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.