Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35895431›Full record

SynthesisThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene2022

Characterizing Medicine Quality by Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient Levels: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis across Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Sachiko Ozawa, Hui-Han Chen, Yi-Fang Ashley Lee, Colleen R Higgins, Tatenda T Yemeke

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 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. Quality of Essential Medicines from Different Sources in Enugu and Anambra, Nigeria.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. 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

5 authors.

Sachiko OzawaDivision of Practice Advancement and Clinical Education, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Hui-Han ChenDivision of Practice Advancement and Clinical Education, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Yi-Fang Ashley LeeDivision of Practice Advancement and Clinical Education, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Colleen R HigginsDivision of Practice Advancement and Clinical Education, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Tatenda T YemekeDivision of Practice Advancement and Clinical Education, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Substandard and falsified medicines are often reported jointly, making it difficult to recognize variations in medicine quality. This study characterized medicine quality based on active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) amounts reported among substandard and falsified essential medicines in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using PubMed, supplemented by results from a previous systematic review, and the Medicine Quality Scientific Literature Surveyor. Study quality was assessed using the Medicine Quality Assessment Reporting Guidelines (MEDQUARG). Random-effects models were used to estimate the prevalence of medicines with < 50% API. Among 95,520 medicine samples from 130 studies, 12.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.2-14.6%) of essential medicines tested in LMICs were considered substandard or falsified, having failed at least one type of quality analysis. We identified 99 studies that reported API content, where 1.8% (95% CI: 0.8-2.8%) of samples reported containing < 50% of stated API. Among all failed samples (N = 9,724), 25.9% (95% CI: 19.3-32.6%) reported having < 80% API. Nearly one in seven (13.8%, 95% CI: 9.0-18.6%) failed samples were likely to be falsified based on reported API amounts of < 50%, whereas the remaining six of seven samples were likely to be substandard. Furthermore, 12.5% (95% CI: 7.7-17.3%) of failed samples reported finding 0% API. Many studies did not present a breakdown of actual API amount of each tested sample. We offer suggested improved guidelines for reporting poor-quality medicines. Consistent data on substandard and falsified medicines and medicine-specific tailored interventions are needed to ensure medicine quality throughout the supply chain.

Indexed as

Counterfeit DrugsDrugs, EssentialDeveloping CountriesHumansIncomePovertyCounterfeit DrugsDrugs, Essential

Identifiers

PMID35895431
PMCPMC9209904

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.