ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Medicines not recommended for inclusion in the who essential medicines list: a retrospective observational study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
- Essential medicines in Central America: Analysis of national lists, macroeconomic factors, and alignment with health priorities.The journal of medicine accessArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) includes those medicines that offer the best health payback for individuals and health systems. It serves as a guide for countries to develop and update national EMLs. The implementation of essential medicines policies is therefore mostly oriented to medicines on the EML. However, medicines evaluated and not recommended for inclusion in the EML also have relevant implications for development of efficient medicine policies. This study analyzed the characteristics, frequencies, and reasons for applications for medicines proposed for inclusion in the WHO EML not being recommended. Methods: Assessment of the recommendations for all medicines proposed for inclusion in the WHO EML in reports of the Expert Committee on Selection and Use of Essential Medicines in the WHO Technical Reports Series from 2002 to 2023. We collected key information from EML applications including active substance, therapeutic indication, orphan status, applicant, and reasons for negative recommendations. Logistic univariate and multivariate regression analyses assessed predictive characteristics for applications with negative recommendations. Results: A total of 359 applications for addition of new medicines to the EML were submitted: 211 (58.8%) received a positive recommendation. Among the 148 (41.2%) applications with a negative recommendation, the most prevalent reasons for not recommending were quality of clinical evidence (62.1%) and economic criteria (33.1%). Concerns about capacity to implement the new medicines in health care systems or requiring specialized expertise increased over time. Applications submitted by pharmaceutical companies, individuals not affiliated with scientific societies or non-governmental organizations, and academia were more prone to receiving a negative recommendation. Discussion: An appreciable proportion of applications for addition of new medicines to the EML are not recommended. Over time, low or limited quality of clinical evidence was a consistent explanatory reason leading to non-recommending. Economic considerations and feasibility are emerging justifications for non-recommending.
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.