ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Assessment of compliance with good review practices by medicine assessors within the Zambia medicines regulatory authority.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The implementation of Good Review Practices (GRevPs) ensures the timely, high-quality review and enhanced availability to safe, quality, and efficacious medicines. It is important, therefore, that all aspects of GRevPs are continuously updated and monitored to promote improvement of the review process. Methods: This study aimed to assess the implementation of the GRevPs in the Zambia Medicines Regulatory Authority (ZAMRA) to identify opportunities for improvement. The GRevP Questionnaire developed by the Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science (CIRS), an established, structured and multi-dimensional questionnaire was completed by the scientific reviewers of the ZAMRA. Results: Twelve of the 16 assessors took part in the study of whom 5 (42%) reported that GRevPs have been implemented and fully adopted across the agency. The study participants provided details indicating the reasons why they believe quality measures had been implemented within ZAMRA. The three most common reasons were to be more efficient, to improve process predictability and increase transparency. However, most of the respondents believed that the current GRevPs framework could be improved. The study noted that training on how GRevPs are to be used and incorporated into daily work was deemed valuable. All the participants reported that ZAMRA has a consistent method for documenting those practices that need to be improved by GRevPs. A mechanism to facilitate updating GrevP at ZAMRA is currently in place, however, it requires enhancement. In general, the importance of GRevPs was well understood by the assessors, however the study showed that target timelines were not well followed at both the department and agency levels. Discussion: This study has successfully determined the GRevPs used in the review process and their implementation by ZAMRA. It has provided a reference point from which the ZAMRA can work towards improvement as a means to enhance regulatory performance. The findings of this study will form the basis of development for the NRA as it strives to achieve the WHO Maturity Level 3 status.
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.