ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025
Quality of antidiabetic medicines in 13 sub-Saharan African countries: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 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
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The burden of diabetes is rising dramatically in low- and middle-income countries. The menace of substandard and falsified drugs constitutes a major hazard that compromises healthcare. The DIABDAF study aimed to assess the quality of routinely used antidiabetic drugs including oral drugs and insulins in sub-Saharan Africa. Methods: Drugs were collected in 13 sub-Saharan African cities in licensed and unlicensed places of sales between February 2020 and March 2023. Chemical analyses were conducted blindly in a public laboratory following recommended good laboratory practices. Drug quality was classified based on the ratio of measured to expected active ingredient dosage: 95-105% as good (A), 85-94·99% or 105·01-115% as low (B), and below 85% or above 115% as very low (C). Impurity levels were assessed using thresholds from the United States and European Pharmacopoeias monographs. Findings: A convenient samples of 4951 antidiabetic drugs were collected from 13 sub-Saharan African countries (Seven middle-income and six low-income countries). Out of the 1673 (of 4951 collected) drug samples randomly tested, 28·0% ( Interpretation: In this multinational study assessing the quality of antidiabetic drugs in sub-Saharan Africa, we found a significant proportion of poor-quality drugs. National health authorities must take action to ensure access to safe, high-quality medications for diabetic patients. Funding: DIABDAF study was exclusively supported by French public grant (INSERM, AVIESAN, AP-HP, and University of Paris Cité).
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.