↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence estimates of substandard drugs in Mongolia using a random sample survey

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
28 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Prevalence estimates of substandard drugs in Mongolia using a random sample survey
Published in
SpringerPlus, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/2193-1801-3-709
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daariimaa Khurelbat, Gereltuya Dorj, Enkhtuul Bayarsaikhan, Munkhdelger Chimedsuren, Tsetsegmaa Sanjjav, Takeshi Morimoto, Michael Morley, Katharine Morley

Abstract

To determine the prevalence of substandard drugs in urban (Ulaanbaatar) and rural (selected provinces) areas of Mongolia, samples of 9 common, therapeutically important drugs were collected from randomly selected drug outlets in Ulaanbaatar and 4 rural provinces by "mystery shoppers". Samples were analyzed by visual inspection, registration status, and biochemical analysis. Samples failing to meet all Pharmacopeia quality tests were considered substandard. In the rural provinces, 69 out of 388 samples were substandard, giving an estimated prevalence of substandard drugs of 17.8% (95% CI: 14.1-22.0). There were 85 unregistered samples, giving a prevalence estimate of unregistered drugs of 21.9%. (95% CI: 17.9-26.3). In the urban Ulaanbaatar districts, 112 out of 848 samples were substandard, giving an estimated prevalence of substandard drugs of 13.2% (95% CI: 11.0-15.7). There were 150 unregistered samples, giving a prevalence estimate of unregistered drugs of 17.7% (95% CI: 15.2-20.4). In the rural provinces, 35 out of 85 (41.2%) unregistered samples were substandard; whereas 34 out of 303 (11.2%) registered samples were substandard. (p < 0.0001) In the urban districts, 18 out of 150 (12.0%) unregistered samples were substandard, whereas 94 out of 698 registered were substandard. (13.5%) (p = 0.6). The prevalence of substandard and unregistered drugs is higher in rural provinces. There is a significant association between substandard and unregistered drugs in the provinces but not in the urban districts. The underlying causes for substandard drugs need to be further investigated in order to help formulate strategies to improve pharmacovigilance and the drug supply quality in Mongolia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
Mongolia 1 4%
Unknown 21 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 26%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Other 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Social Sciences 2 9%
Physics and Astronomy 1 4%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 5 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 28 November 2022.
All research outputs
#1,475,497
of 25,722,279 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#65
of 1,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,114
of 370,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#4
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,722,279 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,876 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 370,848 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.