ArticleJournal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners2026
A critical appraisal of South African oncology pharmacy standards: A comparison with international best practice standards.
Article in Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
IntroductionThe demand for oncology pharmacy services is set to increase as the burden of cancer rises in sub-Saharan Africa. Oncology pharmacists may be exposed to antineoplastic drugs (ADs) and need comprehensive health and safety guidelines. The objective of the study was to assess the effectiveness of the local oncology pharmacy practice standards, by critically evaluating them against international best practice standards.MethodsWe compared the Independent Clinical Oncology Network (ICON) administration of ADs standards resource document (ICON standards) and Good Pharmacy Practice (GPP) standards with the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners (ISOPP) Standards for the safe handling of cytotoxics, and the Quality standard for the oncology pharmacy service (QuaPos), using 10 domains: transport of ADs, working arrangements, education and training, engineering controls, use of personal protective equipment, risk management, medical monitoring of personnel, cleaning procedures, accident management and documentation, labelling and checking procedures.ResultsThe ICON standards align closely with international best practice standards, but the GPP standards focus only briefly on the compounding of ADs.The GPP standards are outdated and some of the stipulations are erroneous. Oncology pharmacists would do better to adhere to the more comprehensive ICON standards, although these standards also need to be updated in line with best practice.ConclusionRevising and improving both these local standards in consultation with key role players in the oncology pharmacy industry will go a long way in protecting the health and safety of oncology pharmacists in South Africa.
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.