Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41018755›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2025

Compulsory licensing of pharmaceuticals during public health crisis: a TRIPS framework analysis.

Zhanpeng Li, Peng Guo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Zhanpeng LiCivil and Commercial Law School, Southwest University of Political Science and Law, ChongQing, China.
Peng GuoLaw School, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed inequities in global healthcare resource allocation, reigniting debates over international intellectual property (IP) protections. Among existing flexibility mechanisms, the TRIPS Agreement's compulsory licensing provisions serve as a critical tool to ensure access to essential medicines. Member states can invoke Article 31(b)'s "national emergency" or "other circumstances of extreme urgency" clauses to utilize patented Pharmaceuticals for public health emergencies without prior authorization, a mechanism already effectively employed by multiple nations during the pandemic. However, due to procedural complexities and potential trade disputes associated with TRIPS, some developing countries have advocated for temporary IP waivers as an alternative solution. It must be emphasized that compulsory licensing retains unique value in balancing public health needs with IP protections. To better prepare for future health crises, improvements to the TRIPS compulsory licensing tool could focus on two priorities: prioritizing essential medicine accessibility over price control objectives, and enhancing local pharmaceutical production capabilities in developing nations.

Indexed as

Drug IndustryDrugs, EssentialLicensurePublic HealthCOVID-19Developing CountriesHealth Services AccessibilityHumansIntellectual PropertyPandemicsDrugs, Essentialaccess to medicinescompulsory licensingpublic healthTRIPSwaiver

Identifiers

PMID41018755
PMCPMC12463931

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.