Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32139959›Full record

ReviewAustralian prescriber2020

National Medicines Policy 2.0: a vision for the future.

Andrew J McLachlan, Parisa Aslani

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Australian prescriber, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. National medicines policy development, Saudi Arabia.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Rational prescribing: 30 years after.Australian prescriber · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Andrew J McLachlanSydney Pharmacy School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney.
Parisa AslaniSydney Pharmacy School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Australia’s National Medicines Policy was launched 20 years ago with the aim of improving health outcomes for all Australians. It was developed in partnership with healthcare professionals, consumers and the pharmaceutical industry The key parts of the Policy focus on timely access to high-quality and affordable medicines and their safe and judicious use. It also supports a viable and responsible pharmaceutical industry Since the Policy was first launched, Australia has seen significant changes in healthcare systems, medicines subsidies, health services remuneration, digital technologies and the pharmaceutical industry Medicines themselves have also changed, as have consumers’ expectations. To respond to these changes, the National Medicines Policy needs to be updated with a greater focus on implementing and measuring outcomes

Indexed as

drug regulationNational Medicines Policypolypharmacy

Identifiers

PMID32139959
PMCPMC7026915

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.