ArticlePloS one2025
A qualitative exploration of counterfeit, substandard, spurious, and adulterated drugs in Pakistan: A perspective of drug law experts.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A qualitative exploration of consumers' views and experiences toward online pharmacies: Narrative from a developing country.PloS one · 2025Article
- Drivers and strategies to combat substandard and falsified medicines in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review of qualitative evidence.The journal of medicine accessReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe issue of quality of medicine is a worldwide phenomenon and counterfeit, substandard, spurious, and adulterated (CSSA) drugs are a substantial threat to public health. This issue is rampant in the context of low-middle-income countries such as Pakistan. The current study involved a phenomenology-based qualitative approach to explore these drugs' perception, knowledge, practice, and issues in combating this menace.
methodsA semi-structured interview guide was developed. Eleven drug law experts were interviewed through a purposive sampling technique. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using a framework analysis approach, yielding seven distinct themes.
resultsThe results showed that CSSA drugs are a serious public health threat and drug law experts confirmed its prevalence in the market. They indicated shortcomings in legislation up to the extent of undue amendments, failure to interpret and implement the law by regulators, ineffective law enforcement machinery, the sub-optimum performance of quality control boards, drug testing laboratories, and courts, and the dubious role of rogue middlemen and wholesalers in drug supply chain and corruption were salient issues highlighted.
conclusionThe study revealed that proper drug surveillance, ensuring the presence of a pharmacist, enforcing the law, securing the supply chain, infrastructure for a drug control regime, and training regulators can help tackle this problem.
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.