Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36918981›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2023

Medicine shortages: impact behind numbers.

Doerine J Postma, Kim Notenboom, Peter A G M De Smet, Hubert G M Leufkens, Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The consequences of medicine shortages on healthcare utilization and care fragmentation.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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 at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Doerine J PostmaDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, Universiteitsweg 99, 3584 CG, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7129-1624
Kim NotenboomDutch Medicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Peter A G M De SmetDepartments of IQ Health Care and of Clinical Pharmacy, Radboud University Medical Centre, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Hubert G M LeufkensDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, Universiteitsweg 99, 3584 CG, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Aukje K Mantel-TeeuwisseDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Utrecht University, Universiteitsweg 99, 3584 CG, Utrecht, The Netherlands. a.k.mantel@uu.nl.
Utrecht University · NLMedicines Evaluation Board · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCurrent research to assess the impact that medicine shortages have on patients is limited to general aspects, such as the prevalence of shortages and product characteristics. The aim of this study is to assess the overall impact that medicine shortages have on economic, clinical, and humanistic outcomes.

methodsA cohort of all known products in shortage in the Netherlands between 2012 and 2015 were characterized by their route of administration, anatomical therapeutic chemical class, and whether they were originator or generic products. A representative sample of 324 shortages (18% of all shortages) was rated as having low, medium, or high impact on the five elements that determine the impact of shortages on patients: availability of an alternative product, underlying disease, susceptibility of the patient, costs (for patients and society at large), and number of patients affected. Ratings were converted into numerical scores per element and multiplied to obtain an overall impact score.

resultsTwo elements were most frequently rated as having a high impact: disease (29%) and costs (20%). Nearly half of the shortages (47%) rated high on at least one element, while nearly 10% rated high on multiple elements. Thirty percent of the shortages rated high on direct impact, which is represented by these elements: alternative product and disease. An additional 17% of the shortages rated high on indirect impact, which is represented by these elements: costs, susceptibility, and number of patients. High impact scores could not significantly be attributed to characteristics of the products in shortage.

conclusionsAn assessment of the medicine shortages' impact using a framework based on economic, clinical, and economic outcomes showed that all three outcomes affect the overall impact that medicine shortages have on patients.

Indexed as

ECHO modelFrameworkImpactMedicine shortagesPatient outcomes

Identifiers

PMID36918981
PMCPMC10013985
OpenAlexW4324133620

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read40
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.