ArticlePloS one2026
Assessing the national essential medicines list selection processes: Instrument development and testing.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNational Medicines Policies use the National Essential Medicines Lists (NEML) to improve equitable access to medications. An effective list selection process should address a country's priority healthcare needs and be aligned with WHO guidelines.
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to develop and test an instrument to measure the effectiveness of NEML selection process design.
methodsAn instrument consisting of 16 items, along with an associated rating scheme, was created through a literature review and consultation with subject matter experts. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for absolute agreement and consistency. Validity was evaluated by comparing instrument scores with two proxy measures of NEML selection process effectiveness.
resultsThe total score for NEML selection process design effectiveness, based on ratings from 5 raters across 4 countries, demonstrated an absolute agreement ICC of 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 0.99) and a consistency ICC of 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.88 to 0.99). Instrument scores varied correspondingly with two proxy measures of NEML selection process effectiveness, indicating good validity.
conclusionThe instrument developed in this study measures the construct of NEML selection process design effectiveness, which essentially evaluates the alignment of national policy content with policy intent. The instrument demonstrated good validity and excellent reliability.
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.