↓ Skip to main content

Anti-malarial medicine quality field studies and surveys: a systematic review of screening technologies used and reporting of findings

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Anti-malarial medicine quality field studies and surveys: a systematic review of screening technologies used and reporting of findings
Published in
Malaria Journal, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-1852-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mirza Lalani, Freddy Eric Kitutu, Siân E. Clarke, Harparkash Kaur

Abstract

Assessing the quality of medicines in low-middle income countries (LMICs) relies primarily on human inspection and screening technologies, where available. Field studies and surveys have frequently utilized screening tests to analyse medicines sampled at the point of care, such as health care facilities and medicine outlets, to provide a snap shot of medicine quality in a specific geographical area. This review presents an overview of the screening tests typically employed in surveys to assess anti-malarial medicine quality, summarizes the analytical methods used, how findings have been reported and proposes a reporting template for future studies. A systematic search of the peer-reviewed and grey literature available in the public domain (including national and multi-national medicine quality surveys) covering the period 1990-2016 was undertaken. Studies were included if they had used screening techniques to assess the quality of anti-malarial medicines. As no standardized set of guidelines for the methodology and reporting of medicine quality surveys exist, the included studies were assessed for their standard against a newly proposed list of criteria. The titles and abstracts of 4621 records were screened and only 39 were found to meet the eligibility criteria. These 39 studies utilized visual inspection, disintegration, colorimetry and Thin Layer Chromatography (TLC) either as components of the Global Pharma Health Fund (GPHF) MiniLab(®) or as individual tests. Overall, 30/39 studies reported employing confirmatory testing described in international pharmacopeia to verify the quality of anti-malarials post assessment by a screening test. The authors assigned scores for the 23 criteria for the standard of reporting of each study. There is considerable heterogeneity in study design and inconsistency in reporting of field surveys of medicine quality. A lack of standardization in the design and reporting of studies of medicine quality increases the risk of bias and error, impacting on the generalizability and reliability of study results. The criteria proposed for reporting on the standard of studies in this review can be used in conjunction with existing medicine quality survey guidelines as a checklist for designing and reporting findings of studies. The review protocol has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015026782).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 21%
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Researcher 5 13%
Professor 3 8%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 23%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 15%
Chemistry 4 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 8%
Unspecified 2 5%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 7 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 April 2018.
All research outputs
#6,770,965
of 24,580,204 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,751
of 5,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,373
of 314,540 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#50
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,580,204 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,786 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,540 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.