ArticleIntegrated pharmacy research & practice2024
Evaluation of Rational Medicines Use Based on World Health Organization Core Indicators: A Cross-Sectional Study in Five Health Districts in Mauritania.
Article in Integrated pharmacy research & practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Irrational medicine use and its associated factors in conflict-affected areas in Mali: a cross-sectional study.Global health action · 2025Article
- Assessment of dispensing practices and patient's knowledge of dispensed medicines in a hospital pharmacy, Ethiopia.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Contextual constraints and dilemmas influencing health providers' prescription practices in a conflict-affected area: Qualitative insights from Mopti, Mali.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Key stakeholders' views on the causes of medicine stock-outs in Mauritania: A qualitative study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Minimising inhaled corticosteroids for COPD.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 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
5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The rational use of medicines is essential for preventing adverse medicine reactions, achieving therapeutic outcomes, and optimizing treatment costs. While the irrational use of medicines is frequently reported in sub-Saharan Africa, to the best of our knowledge no formal studies have taken place in Mauritania thus far. The main objective of this study was therefore to analyze the rational use of medicines in public and private not-for-profit health facilities, in five health districts in Mauritania. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study to assess the rational use of medicines. We used the standard indicators derived from the methodologies of the World Health Organization (WHO) and International Network for Rational Use of Drugs (INRUD). Data were prospectively collected from 1050 prescriptions/patients, in thirty-one public and private not-for-profit health posts/centers in 5 health districts. The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. P value less than 0.05 at 95% confidence interval considered for significance of relationships for associations in statistical test. Results: The average number of medicines per prescription was 2.21; 83.1% (1931/2325) of medicines were prescribed by generic name, but only 54% (1253/2325) were on the National Essential Medicine List (NEML). Antibiotics were prescribed in 62.4% (655/1050) of the consultations, and injectable medicines were prescribed in 15.6% (164/1050) of the consultations. The average consultation time was 16.32 minutes, and the average dispensing time was 97 seconds. Dispensed medicines were correctly labeled, and 83% (871/1050) of patients met the correct administration schedule. The NEML, and the "restricted NEML" for 76 commonly-used medicines, were available in all surveyed health facilities, but the National Therapeutic Guidelines were available in only 60.26% of them. Conclusion: Our findings indicate a possible excess of antibiotics prescriptions, and a likely lack of knowledge of the National Therapeutic Guidelines. There is a need to investigate in more detail the prescription patterns versus disease-specific therapeutic guidelines, and to qualitatively investigate the factors that contribute to the observed irrational prescribing. Moreover, training local staff in the rational use of medicines seems important.
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.