ArticlePloS one2025
A comparative study between Near-Infrared (NIR) spectrometer and High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) on the sensitivity and specificity.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is estimated that 10.5% of medicines in low- and middle-income countries are substandard or falsified (SF), causing approximately 1 million deaths annually. Over the past two decades, there have been significant technological advancements in low-cost, portable screening devices to detect poor-quality medicines, which could be especially beneficial in these countries. The pharmaceutical market in Nigeria is valued at USD 4.5 billion and is growing at over 9% annually. However, SF medicines remain a major public health concern. We compared a novel Near-Infrared (NIR) Spectrometer with high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) by analyzing 246 drug samples purchased from retail pharmacies across the six geopolitical regions of Nigeria. We measured the sensitivity and specificity of a patented and Artificial Intelligence (AI) - powered handheld NIR spectrometer, which uses a proprietary machine-learning algorithm as well as hardware and software, across four categories of medicines: analgesics, antimalarials, antibiotics, and antihypertensives. Our findings reveal that the prevalence of SF medicines remains high, with 25% of samples failing the HPLC test. When tested with the NIR spectrometer, only a smaller subset of medicines-specifically analgesics-failed the test. Sensitivity and specificity for all medicines were 11% and 74%, respectively. For analgesics, the sensitivity was 37%, and the specificity was 47%. While these devices hold great potential, regulators should require more independent evaluations of various drug formulations before implementing them in real-world settings. Improving the sensitivity of these devices should be prioritized to ensure that no SF medicines reach patients.
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.