The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Substandard and counterfeit medicines: a systematic review of the literature
Open accessAbstract
Objective: To explore the evidence available of poor-quality (counterfeit and substandard) medicines in the literature. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: Databases used were EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, including articles published till January 2013. Eligibility criteria: Prevalence studies containing original data. WHO definitions (1992) used for counterfeit and substandard medicines. Study appraisal and synthesis: Two reviewers independently scored study methodology against recommendations from the MEDQUARG Checklist. Studies were classified according to the World Bank classification of countries by income. Data extraction: Data extracted: place of study; type of drugs sampled; sample size; percentage of substandard/counterfeit medicines; formulations included; origin of the drugs; chemical analysis and stated issues of counterfeit/substandard medicines. Results: 44 prevalence studies were identified, 15 had good methodological quality. They were conducted in 25 different countries; the majority were in low-income countries (11) and/or lower middle-income countries (10). The median prevalence of substandard/counterfeit medicines was 28.5% (range 11–48%). Only two studies differentiated between substandard and counterfeit medicines. Prevalence data were limited to antimicrobial drugs (all 15 studies). 13 studies involved antimalarials, 6 antibiotics and 2 other medications. The majority of studies (93%) contained samples with inadequate amounts of active ingredients. The prevalence of substandard/counterfeit antimicrobials was significantly higher when purchased from unlicensed outlets (p<0.000; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.32). No individual data about the prevalence in upper middle-income countries and high-income countries were available. Limitations: Studies with strong methodology were few. The majority did not differentiate between substandard and counterfeit medicines. Most studies assessed only a single therapeutic class of antimicrobials. Conclusions: The prevalence of poor-quality antimicrobial medicines is widespread throughout Africa and Asia in lower income countries and lower middle-income countries . The main problem identified was inadequate amounts of the active ingredients.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 · Cited by 19,575
Substandard medicines in resource‐poor settings: a problem that can no longer be ignored
Caudron, J. ‐., Ford, N., Henkens, M., Macé, C., Kiddle‐Monroe, R., & Pinel, J. (2008) · Tropical Medicine & International Health · doi:10.1111/j.1365-3156.2008.02106.x · Cited by 332
Impact of poor-quality medicines in the ‘developing’ world
Newton, P. N., Green, M. D., & Fernández, F. M. (2010) · Trends in Pharmacological Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tips.2009.11.005 · Cited by 289
Dondorp, A. M., Newton, P. N., Mayxay, M., Van Damme, W., Smithuis, F. M., Yeung, S., Petit, A., Lynam, A. J., Johnson, A., Hien, T. T., et al. (2004) · Tropical Medicine & International Health · doi:10.1111/j.1365-3156.2004.01342.x · Cited by 240
Assessment of the incidence of substandard drugs in developing countries
Shakoor, O., Taylor, R. B., & Behrens, R. H. (1997) · Tropical Medicine & International Health · doi:10.1046/j.1365-3156.1997.d01-403.x · Cited by 228
The global counterfeit drug trade: Patient safety and public health risks
Mackey, T. K., & Liang, B. A. (2011) · Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences · doi:10.1002/jps.22679 · Cited by 222
Pharmacopoeial quality of drugs supplied by Nigerian pharmacies
Taylor, R., Shakoor, O., Behrens, R., Everard, M., Low, A., Wangboonskul, J., Reid, R., & Kolawole, J. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)05065-0 · Cited by 221
Cited by
Global antibiotic consumption and usage in humans, 2000–18: a spatial modelling study
Browne, A. J., Chipeta, M. G., Haines-Woodhouse, G., Kumaran, E. P. A., Hamadani, B. H. K., Zaraa, S., Henry, N. J., Deshpande, A., Reiner, R. C., Day, N. P. J., et al. (2021) · The Lancet Planetary Health · doi:10.1016/s2542-5196(21)00280-1 · Cited by 865
Essential medicines for universal health coverage
Wirtz, V. J., Hogerzeil, H. V., Gray, A. L., Bigdeli, M., de Joncheere, C. P., Ewen, M. A., Gyansa-Lutterodt, M., Jing, S., Luiza, V. L., Mbindyo, R. M., et al. (2017) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31599-9 · Cited by 661
Ozawa, S., Evans, D. R., Bessias, S., Haynie, D. G., Yemeke, T. T., Laing, S. K., & Herrington, J. E. (2018) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1662 · Cited by 356
Agyepong, I. A., Sewankambo, N., Binagwaho, A., Coll-Seck, A. M., Corrah, T., Ezeh, A., Fekadu, A., Kilonzo, N., Lamptey, P., Masiye, F., et al. (2017) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)31509-x · Cited by 245
Anti-corruption, transparency and accountability in health: concepts, frameworks, and approaches
Vian, T. (2020) · Global Health Action · doi:10.1080/16549716.2019.1694744 · Cited by 249
Metadata
- Authors
- Almuzaini, T., Choonara, I., & Sammons, H.
- Venue
- BMJ Open
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2013-08
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- e002923
- ISSN
- 2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2164318124
- Cited by
- 286
- References
- 22
- FWCI
- 3.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Substandard and counterfeit medicines: a systematic review of the literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002923
- The paper
- Almuzaini, T., Choonara, I., & Sammons, H. (2013). Substandard and counterfeit medicines: a systematic review of the literature. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002923
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.