ArticlePloS one2023
Usefulness of medicine screening tools in the frame of pharmaceutical post-marketing surveillance.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- A randomised survey of the quality of antibiotics and other essential medicines in Indonesia, with volume-adjusted estimates of the prevalence of substandard medicines.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Screening for substandard and falsified medicines in Nigeria using visual inspection and GPHF-Minilab analysis: lessons learnt for future training of health workers and pharmacy personnel.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The negative consequences of Substandard and falsified (SF) medicines are widely documented nowadays and there is still an urgent need to find them in more efficient ways. Several screening tools have been developed for this purpose recently. In this study, three screening tools were used on 292 samples of ciprofloxacin and metronidazole collected in Cameroon. Each sample was then analyzed by HPLC and disintegration tests. Seven additional samples from the nitro-imidazole (secnidazole, ornidazole, tinidazole) and the fluoroquinolone (levofloxacin, ofloxacin, norfloxacin, moxifloxacin) families were analyzed to mimic falsified medicines. Placebo samples that contained only inert excipients were also tested to mimic falsified samples without active pharmaceutical ingredient (API). The three screening tools implemented were: a simplified visual inspection checklist, a low-cost handheld near infrared (NIR) spectrophotometer and paper analytical devices (PADs). Overall, 61.1% of the samples that failed disintegration and assay tests also failed the visual inspection checklist test. For the handheld NIR, one-class classifier models were built to detect the presence of ciprofloxacin and metronidazole, respectively. The APIs were correctly identified in all the samples with sensitivities and specificities of 100%. However, the importance of a representative and up-to-date spectral database was underlined by comparing models built with different calibration set spanning different variability spaces. The PADs were used only on ciprofloxacin samples and detected the API in all samples in which the presence of ciprofloxacin was confirmed by HPLC. However, these PADs were not specific to ciprofloxacin since they reacted like ciprofloxacin to other fluoroquinolone compounds. The advantages and drawbacks of each screening tool were highlighted. They are promising means in the frame of early detection of SF medicines and they can increase the speed of decision about SF medicines in the context of pharmaceutical post-marketing surveillance.
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.