Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29695278›Full record

ArticleGlobalization and health2018

Global landscape assessment of screening technologies for medicine quality assurance: stakeholder perceptions and practices from ten countries.

Lukas Roth, Ameena Nalim, Beth Turesson, Laura Krech

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Globalization and health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. How Do We Combat Bogus Medicines in the Age of the COVID-19 Pandemic?The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

4 authors.

Lukas RothGlobal Public Health Division, United States Pharmacopeial Convention, 12601 Twinbrook Parkway, Rockville, Maryland, USA. lrot7486@uni.sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1557-1490
Ameena NalimGlobal Public Health Division, United States Pharmacopeial Convention, 12601 Twinbrook Parkway, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Beth TuressonGlobal Public Health Division, United States Pharmacopeial Convention, 12601 Twinbrook Parkway, Rockville, Maryland, USA.
Laura KrechGlobal Public Health Division, United States Pharmacopeial Convention, 12601 Twinbrook Parkway, Rockville, Maryland, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe spread of substandard and falsified (SF) medical products constitutes a growing global public health concern. Some countries use portable, handheld screening technologies (STs) in the field to accelerate detection of SF medicines and reduce the number of medicine samples that undergo costly and time-consuming confirmatory analysis.

methodsA multi-country, multi-stakeholder landscape assessment utilizing qualitative methodology was used to examine practices and perceptions related to the use of STs. Qualitative interview guides were designed using the results of a literature review and comprised of open-ended questions with the study participants, who were from national medicine regulatory authorities, pharmaceutical manufacturers, pharmacies, and distributors. Ten geographically and economically diverse countries were selected: Argentina, China, Egypt, India, Jordan, Mexico, Nigeria, Philippines, the United States, and Zimbabwe. Of the completed 53 interviews, 32 were in-person, 16 were phone interviews, and 5 were via written questionnaires.

resultsData analysis shows a wide variation in understanding and usage of STs in different sectors. Virtually all of the study participants indicated a lack of objective, accessible information on STs to advise them on what technologies would be beneficial for their needs. Study participants also described their ideal capabilities of the next generation of STs, including shareable spectral libraries, lower acquisition costs, lesser training requirements, and in-country maintenance and technical support.

conclusionThe results and recommendations presented in this article can be used to help regulators communicate and justify their needs to acquire and invest in new STs. There is a need for additional standardized, trustworthy and scientifically sound evaluations of STs, and to support regulators to effectively deploy the most promising technologies. ST manufacturers can take into account some of the limitations of the technologies the interviewees identified in this article, such as a dearth of technologies, which provide quantitative information about the active ingredient, and take steps to address them to better serve their customers. These results and recommendations, can catalyze research and actionable interventions into the development, review, application, and use of STs.

Indexed as

Global HealthQuality ControlTechnologyArgentinaChinaEgyptHumansIndiaJordanMexicoNigeriaPharmaceutical PreparationsPhilippinesQualitative ResearchStakeholder ParticipationSurveys and QuestionnairesPharmaceutical PreparationsMedicine quality screening technologiesPharmaceutical systemsSubstandard and falsified medicines

Identifiers

PMID29695278
PMCPMC5922304

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.