Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36204504›Full record

ArticleMedicine access @ point of care

Medicine quality in high-income countries: The obstacles to comparative prevalence studies.

Bernard David Naughton, Ebru Akgul

Open access · goldAbstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine access @ point of care. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Bernard David NaughtonFaculty of Health Sciences, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6947-8297
Ebru AkgulSchool of Pharmacy, University College London, London, UK.
Trinity College Dublin · IEUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The entry of falsified and substandard medicines into the legitimate pharmaceutical supply chain has negative impacts on healthcare systems, patient safety, and patient access to medicine. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of access to safe medicine through legitimate pharmaceutical supply chains and the willingness of criminals to target medical products such as PPE (personal protective equipment) and COVID-19 treatments. In this article, we analyse data from the United Kingdom (UK) national medicine alert and recall database to identify and understand recent cases of substandard and falsified medicine in the UK's healthcare systems. Using the UK as a case study, we describe that national drug alert and recall data are useful in their current form to record and understand cases of substandard and falsified medicines in the supply chain. However, if regulatory agencies published further data, these drug recall databases may be useful to support longitudinal and international comparative medicine quality studies. We suggest that regulatory agencies publish the number of affected medicine packs in each recalled batch, as part of the recall process. This will help policy makers, practitioners, and researchers to better understand, monitor and compare the quality of medicines within legitimate supply chains.

Indexed as

comparative healthcarefalsified medicineMedicine qualitypharmaceutical industryproduct recallsubstandard medicinesupply chain

Identifiers

PMID36204504
PMCPMC9413605
OpenAlexW3209465705

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.