SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Pharmaceutical regulatory harmonization in Africa: a scoping review of policy design, implementation approaches, and outcomes.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Limited capacity in African national medicine regulatory authorities results in delayed registrations, regulatory inefficiencies, and the ongoing circulation of substandard and falsified medicines. The African Medicines Regulatory Harmonization initiative and regional mechanisms work to make medicine approval faster and fairer across Africa using convergent mechanisms. We aim to map and integrate evidence on pharmaceutical regulatory harmonization in Africa, concentrating on policy, implementation strategies, and reported outcomes, and identify barriers, facilitators, and evidence gaps to guide future research and policy formulation. Methods: This scoping review applied Arksey and O'Malley's framework (Levac refinements) and PRISMA-ScR reporting standards. Systematic searches of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and targeted gray literature identified English-language sources addressing policy design, implementation, governance, barriers/facilitators, and outcomes of pharmaceutical regulatory harmonization in Africa. Data from 19 included documents (2015-2025) were charted and synthesized via descriptive summaries and inductive thematic analysis. Results: The primary strategies included joint reviews, collaboration in Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) inspections, regulatory reliance, standardized technical guidelines, and partnership-based capacity building. Documented improvements encompassed significant reductions in median joint review durations (e.g., EAC: 553-259 days), elevated application volumes, enhanced adherent GMP rates, improved Global Benchmarking Tool maturity levels, and economically viable regional recommendations. Major barriers were resource limitations, maturity differentials, delayed national uptake, weak binding reliance, coordination inefficiencies, and donor dependency; key facilitators included political will, partner support, International Medicines Regulatory Authority (IMRA) trust, and proven process efficiencies. Conclusion: Regional harmonization has produced significant regulatory efficiency and capability in East and Southern Africa. Regional harmonization has resulted in continued progress toward the Africa Medicine Agency necessities, enhanced political dedication, and diversified funding. Expedited adoption of standardized protocols, reinforced reliance mechanisms, and theory-based longitudinal assessments are needed to ensure equitable and sustainable access to quality pharmaceuticals.
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.