Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42448933›Full record

ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2026

Comparison of essential drug lists: concordance, differences, and the need for core lists in times of crisis.

Lilly Josephine Bindel, Roland Seifert

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2026. 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.

Lilly Josephine BindelInstitute of Pharmacology Hannover Medical School, D-30625, Hannover, Germany.
Roland SeifertInstitute of Pharmacology Hannover Medical School, D-30625, Hannover, Germany. seifert.roland@mh-hannover.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The prioritization of essential drugs is important for rational pharmacotherapy, public health, drug availability, and medical education. While the Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) of the World Health Organization (WHO) is considered the international reference, other drug lists focus on supply-related or educational purposes. Seven drug lists were compared. Drug names were extracted, harmonized, and analysed for their presence on each list. Assessed were the number of listings per drug, the concordance between the lists, and the comparison of the EML 2025 with other lists. In addition, frequently prescribed drugs in Germany were compared with the summarized drug list. In total, 1061 single drugs were identified. Most drugs were listed on one to three drug lists (n = 824; 77.6%), whereas 49 drugs were listed on six or seven lists. These highly concordant drugs mainly covered broad-use symptomatic care, long-term treatment of chronic disorders, and emergency situations. Several frequently prescribed drugs and relevant indication areas were not represented within the highly concordant core. Essentiality strongly depends on the purpose, scope, and regional context of a drug list. Broad concordance can support the relevance and recognition of established drugs across different contexts, but does not prove therapeutic value or essentiality. Therefore, comparison with other drug lists provides an additional perspective, but should be combined with drug-specific assessment of therapeutic value, safety, prescription relevance, feasibility, and global need. Especially in times of crisis, effort is needed for the development of national and international core essential drug lists.

Indexed as

Drug availabilityDrug listsEMLEssential medicinesMedical educationRational pharmacotherapy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.