Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32377348›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2020

A simplified checklist for the visual inspection of finished pharmaceutical products: a way to empower frontline health workers in the fight against poor-quality medicines.

B Schiavetti, E Wynendaele, V Melotte, J Van der Elst, B De Spiegeleer, R Ravinetto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. "Global bioethics = Problemi di bioetica · 2022
    Article
  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

6 authors.

B Schiavetti1Institute of Tropical Medicine Antwerp, Nationalestraat 155, B-2000 Antwerp, Belgium.
E Wynendaele2Department Pharmaceutical Analysis, DruQuaR (Drug Quality & Registration), Ghent University, Ottergemsesteenweg 460, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium.
V MelotteBrussels, Belgium.
J Van der ElstCentre for Adult Education CVO COOVI, Emile Grysonlaan 1, 1070 Brussels, Belgium.
B De Spiegeleer2Department Pharmaceutical Analysis, DruQuaR (Drug Quality & Registration), Ghent University, Ottergemsesteenweg 460, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium.
R Ravinetto5Department of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine Antwerp, Nationalestraat 155, B-2000 Antwerp, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSubstandard and falsified medicines, mainly prevalent in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), cause avoidable morbidity and mortality, and put at stake the performance of health systems. They may be prevented by an adequate implementation of pharmaceutical Quality Assurance (QA) guidelines, but unfortunately, most guidelines address upstream stakeholders and specialized staff in the supply chain. A multi-layered approach is needed, in order to empower the health workers at the point-of-care to proactively contribute to the fight against poor-quality medicines.Visual inspection is a simple technique, suitable for field screening. The findings of a survey conducted in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) suggested that it might be a fairly good (yet partial) predictor of poor-quality, when compared to full laboratory tests. METHODS AND

resultsStarting from the 68-questions checklist originally used in the survey in the DRC, we developed a simplified checklist, specifically designed to guide health workers at the point of care to rapidly identify suspect poor-quality medicines. We selected those medicines' attributes the assessment of which does not require technical expertise, or access to regulatory information. Attributes were categorized according to a 3-level risk scale, to guide decision-making on suspect poor-quality medicines, based on an informed risk assessment.The simplified checklist contains 26 binary questions (YES/NO), grouped into four themes: packaging, identification, traceability, and physical appearance. Each non-conformity corresponds to a level of risk for patients. The user is guided towards three possible actions: A) reasonably safe for dispensing; B) dispense with explanation; C) quarantine and make a risk-benefit evaluation before dispensing.

conclusionThe simplified checklist should now be implemented in real-life setting in LMICs. If proven useful in guiding health workers at the point-of-care to take rapid, transparent, patient-centred actions when facing a suspect poor-quality medicine, it could be further extended to address specific formulations. Digitalization for linkage with pharmacovigilance programs could also be considered.

Indexed as

Developing countriesFalsifiedHealth workersMedicinesPharmacovigilancePoint of carePost-marketing surveillancePrimary health careQuality assuranceSubstandardVisual inspection

Identifiers

PMID32377348
PMCPMC7193355

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.