Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31528352›Full record

ReviewJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2019

Regulatory framework in Pakistan: situation analysis of medicine quality and future recommendations.

Huma Rasheed, Ludwig Hoellein, Khalid Saeed Bukhari, Ulrike Holzgrabe

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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.

Huma Rasheed1Institute of Pharmacy and Food Chemistry, University of Wuerzburg, am Hubland, 97074 Wuerzburg, Germany.
Ludwig Hoellein1Institute of Pharmacy and Food Chemistry, University of Wuerzburg, am Hubland, 97074 Wuerzburg, Germany.
Khalid Saeed Bukhari3USP Promoting the Quality of Medicines (PQM) Program, U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention, 12601 Twinbrook Parkway, Rockville, MD 20852-1790 USA.
Ulrike Holzgrabe1Institute of Pharmacy and Food Chemistry, University of Wuerzburg, am Hubland, 97074 Wuerzburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0364-7278

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuality issues in pharmaceuticals are identified as a huge global and public health problem, especially with reference to low- and middle-income countries like Pakistan. The 2011 "Fake Drug Crisis" acted as a driving force to reform the regulatory structures of the country and for establishing the autonomous "Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan". Despite the fact that Pakistan possesses a huge pharmaceutical industry, there is a severe dearth of published literature and scientific evidence for the country regarding medicine quality and the prevalence of counterfeit and low-quality products, respectively. AIMS AND

objectivesThis narrative review covers relevant features of the regulatory framework for pharmaceuticals in Pakistan, its national pharmaceutical industry, as well as a compilation and analysis of published literature for documentation of the country's situation regarding the overall quality of medicines.

methodsAvailable data including scientific publications on the quality of pharmaceuticals in peer reviewed journals, research reports, notifications, and alerts issued by the World Health Organization and other agencies were accessed and compiled. Post graduate dissertations were used to represent unpublished research data and drug safety alerts issued from the local Pakistan authority were analysed to assess the type and number of quality failures reported for pharmaceuticals.

resultsIt could be clearly shown that there is negligible scientific data available on the issue of medicine quality in Pakistan. The anticipated number of 40-50% of poor-quality drugs in Pakistan cannot be defended by data available from the literature. Accessible technologies and strategies used in recent years at global level, especially in developing countries, were also reviewed and recommendations are devised for Pakistan to combat the fight against poor-quality medicines.

conclusionThe case reports, investigations, and general data listed for Pakistan suggest the need of strengthening regulatory systems for premises and GMP inspections, analytical laboratories, as well as an overall capacity building in the field of unravelling and controlling substandard and falsified medicines. It is proposed that well-planned and properly funded studies need to be carried out for collecting critical statistics regarding the prevalence of substandard and falsified medicines in Pakistan.

Indexed as

Drug regulatory authorityFalsifiedPakistanPharmaceutical regulationPoor-qualitySubstandard

Identifiers

PMID31528352
PMCPMC6737614

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.