ArticlePLOS global public health2024
A randomised survey of the quality of antibiotics and other essential medicines in Indonesia, with volume-adjusted estimates of the prevalence of substandard medicines.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Protocol deviations in medicine quality tests.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2026Article
- Article
- Are quality medicines affordable? Evidence from a large survey of medicine price and quality in Indonesia.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Article
- Correction: 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 · 2025Article
- Value for money of medicine sampling and quality testing: evidence from Indonesia.BMJ global health · 2024Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The World Health Organization warns that substandard and falsified medicines threaten public health in low- and middle-income countries. However, medicine quality surveys are often small and unrepresentative of the market, and the true scale of the problem remains unknown. We conducted a large field survey of essential medicines in Indonesia, and investigated how weighting survey results by market volume altered estimates of medicine quality. We collected 1274 samples of allopurinol, amlodipine, cefixime, amoxicillin and dexamethasone from the internet and a randomised sample of all outlet-types where medicines are sold or dispensed in seven districts across the world's fourth most populous nation. We conducted compendial testing for identity, assay, dissolution and uniformity. Samples that failed any chemical test were considered substandard. We compared raw prevalence of substandard medicines with prevalence adjusted by the national sales volume of each brand, relative to its weight among survey samples. The weighted prevalence of substandard products was 4.4%, 47% lower than the raw estimate (8.2%). Only 0.5% of samples (unweighted 1.2%) deviated from permitted limits by more than 10%. More antibiotics failed testing than other medicines (weighted prevalence 8.5 vs 3.1; raw prevalence 13.6 vs 4.9, both p<0.000). We found no relationship between quality and price; branded status; public procurement status; or outlet type. In Indonesia, unweighted survey data appeared to substantially over-estimate the health threat posed by substandard or falsified medicines. The types of sampling bias that led to over-representation of poor quality products in our survey are also indicated in other published surveys, possibly exaggerating the scale of the threat to public health posed by substandard and falsified medicines globally. Weighting survey results by sales volume likely improves robustness of estimates of medicine quality measured in field surveys.
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.