Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28478398›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Medicine authentication technology as a counterfeit medicine-detection tool: a Delphi method study to establish expert opinion on manual medicine authentication technology in secondary care.

Bernard Naughton, Lindsey Roberts, Sue Dopson, David Brindley, Stephen Chapman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Key performance and training parameters in primary total hip arthroplasty - an expert consensus using the Delphi technique.Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. 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

5 authors.

Bernard NaughtonInstitute of Science and Technology in Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Lindsey RobertsMedicines Optimisation Clinical Network, Oxford Academic Health Science Network (AHSN), Oxford, UK.
Sue DopsonSaid Business School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
David BrindleySaid Business School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Stephen ChapmanInstitute of Science and Technology in Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aims to establish expert opinion and potential improvements for the Falsified Medicines Directive mandated medicines authentication technology. DESIGN AND

interventionA two-round Delphi method study using an online questionnaire.

settingLarge National Health Service (NHS) foundation trust teaching hospital.

participantsSecondary care pharmacists and accredited checking technicians. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Seven-point rating scale answers which reached a consensus of 70-80% with a standard deviation (SD) of <1.0. Likert scale questions which reached a consensus of 70-80%, a SD of <1.0 and classified as important according to study criteria.

resultsConsensus expert opinion has described database cross-checking technology as quick and user friendly and suggested the inclusion of an audio signal to further support the detection of counterfeit medicines in secondary care (70% consensus, 0.9 SD); other important consensus with a SD of <1.0 included reviewing the colour and information in warning pop up screens to ensure they were not mistaken for the 'already dispensed here' pop up, encouraging the dispenser/checker to act on the warnings and making it mandatory to complete an 'action taken' documentation process to improve the quarantine of potentially counterfeit, expired or recalled medicines.

conclusionsThis paper informs key opinion leaders and decision makers as to the positives and negatives of medicines authentication technology from an operator's perspective and suggests the adjustments which may be required to improve operator compliance and the detection of counterfeit medicines in the secondary care sector.

Indexed as

Delphi TechniqueConsensusCounterfeit DrugsDrug RecallsHealth Care SurveysHumansPharmaceutical PreparationsQualitative ResearchSecondary Health CareTechnology, PharmaceuticalUnited KingdomCounterfeit DrugsPharmaceutical PreparationsCounterfeit drugsDelphi techniquePUBLIC HEALTH

Identifiers

PMID28478398
PMCPMC5777456

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.