ArticleBMJ global health2026
Weak economic evidence for WHO's essential cancer medicines for Africa.
Article in BMJ global health, 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
introductionThe WHO Model Lists of Essential Medicines (MLEM and MLEMc) guide national medicine selection, particularly in low-income and lower middle-income countries (LMICs). Concerns exist about the adequacy and transferability of economic evidence supporting recent cancer medicine additions.
methodsWe systematically examined modifications to cancer medicines on the WHO MLEM(c) between 2017 and 2023 and assessed their adoption into National Essential Medicines Lists (NEMLs) and NEMLs for children (NEMLcs) of African LMICs (2019-2024). Economic evidence was classified as cost or cost-effectiveness data and transferability to African LMIC contexts was evaluated.
resultsOf 160 modifications, 11% included cost data and 9% cost-effectiveness evidence. All identified cost-effectiveness studies showed low transferability to African LMIC settings. Among 46 African LMICs, 23 NEMLs and 6 NEMLcs were available. Median adoption of new cancer medicines was 23% for NEMLs and 13% for NEMLcs.
conclusionRecent WHO MLEM(c) modifications to cancer medicines are rarely supported by robust, context-specific economic evidence yet several have been adopted in African LMICs. Stronger requirements for economic evaluations are essential to ensure the affordability, sustainability and policy relevance of WHO essential medicine recommendations.
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.