ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Identifying and costing common gaps in Central and West Africa pharmaceutical regulation.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pharmaceutical regulatory harmonization in Africa: a scoping review of policy design, implementation approaches, and outcomes.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of the review models and regulatory timelines of seven countries participating in the ECOWAS-MRH initiative: identifying opportunities for improvement.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Regulatory systems strengthening is crucial for catalyzing access to safe and effective medical products and health technologies (MPHT) for all. Identifying and addressing common regulatory gaps through regional approaches could be instrumental for the newly incepted African Medicine Agency. Aims: This original study sheds light on common gaps among 10 national regulatory authorities (NRAs) and ways to address them regionally. Objectives: The study used NRA self-assessment outcomes to identify common gaps in four critical regulatory pillars and estimate the cost of addressing them from regional perspectives that aimed at raising the maturity level of regulatory institutions. Methods: A cross-sectional study, using the WHO Global Benchmarking Tool (GBT), was conducted between 2020 and 2021 with five NRAs from ECCAS and ECOWAS member states that use French and Spanish as Results: The 10 NRAs operated in a non-formal-to-reactive approach (ML1-2), which hinders their ability to ensure the quality of MPHT and respond appropriately to public health emergencies. Common gaps were identified in four critical regulatory pillars-good regulatory practices, preparedness for public health emergencies, quality management systems, and substandard and falsified medical products-with overall cost to address gaps estimated at US$3.3 million. Contribution: We elaborated a reproducible method to strengthen regulatory systems at a regional level to improve equitable access to assured-quality MPHT. Our bottom-up approach could be utilized by RECs to address common gaps through common efforts.
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.