ReviewGlobal public health2020
The ghost in the data: Evidence gaps and the problem of fake drugs in global health research.
Review in Global public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The need of innovation and of preservation of well-established techniques in the era of MDR for improving outcomes.EFORT open reviews · 2026Review
- Terahertz Spectroscopy and Density Functional Theory for Non-Destructive Analysis of Anticoagulant Warfarin.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Redefining Counterfeit Medicines and Updating the Legal Framework to Address Falsified Medicines: A Qualitative Policy Review.Acta medica Philippina · 2025Article
- Sub-standard or Sub-legal? Distribution, Pharma Dossiers, and Fake-talk in India.Medicine anthropology theory · 2023Article
- Fake drugs, real concerns: Counterfeit HIV medications and community trust.Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP · 2023Article
- Pharmacists' views on the impact of the Falsified Medicines Directive on community pharmacies: A cross-sectional survey.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2022Article
- When suspicion replaces evidence in public health.Lancet (London, England) · 2021Article
- Substandard and Falsified Medicines: Proposed Methods for Case Finding and Sentinel Surveillance.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
For the past several decades, global health research and policy have raised the alarm about the growing threat of counterfeit and low-quality drugs (henceforth 'fakes'). These high-profile and regularly-repeated claims about 'fake drugs' pepper scholarly publications, grey literature, and popular writing. We reviewed much of this work and found that it shares two characteristics that sit awkwardly alongside one another. First, it asserts that fake drugs constitute an urgent threat to lives. Second, it reports trouble with 'gaps' in the evidence on which their claims are based; that data is weaker and less conclusive than anticipated. Given the ubiquity of and urgency with these claims are made, we found this juxtaposition perplexing. To understand this juxtaposition better, we undertook a close reading of the strategies authors employed to negotiate and overcome data and evidence 'gaps' and asked questions about the cultures of scholarly publishing in global health research. We argue that a scholarly commitment to studying fakes despite--rather than because of-the evidence functions to support the continuation of similar research. It also works against asking different questions-for instance regarding the lack of easy access to pharmacological data that might make it possible to know fakes differently.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.