SynthesisBMJ open2025
Global insight into rare disease and orphan drug definitions: a systematic literature review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rebalancing innovation, affordability, and access for orphan drugs in the European Union.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Review
- Article
- The Orphanet Nomenclature and Classification of Rare Diseases for Improved Patient Recognition and Data Interoperability: Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Parents' Perspectives on Access to Pediatric Rare Disease Cross-Border Clinical Trials in Europe: Experiences of Language Inclusion and Preferences.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Article
- Policy lessons regarding medical security for rare diseases inChina: Insights from Zhejiang Province through the multiplestreams framework.Intractable & rare diseases research · 2026Review
- Rare disease patients protection: theoretical discussion and institutional construction of orphan drug designation in China.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Article
- Awareness and knowledge gaps about pediatric rare disease among anesthesia practitioners in China: a survey-based study.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Shaping national rare diseases definition in Saudi Arabia: outcome from health ecosystem multisectoral workshop.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Towards a sustainable rare disease and orphan drug ecosystem in Saudi Arabia: policy insights from a multi-stakeholder workshop.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
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
objectivesThis study sheds light on the available global definitions, classifications, and criteria used for rare diseases (RDs), ultrarare diseases (URDs), orphan drugs (ODs) and ultraorphan drugs (UODs) and provides insights into the rationale behind these definitions.
designA systematic literature review was conducted to identify existing definitions and the criteria used to define RDs, ODs and their subtypes. DATA SOURCES: Searches were performed in the PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science (Science and Social Sciences Citation Index) databases covering articles published from 1985 to 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: English-language studies on the general human population were included if they provided definitions or criteria for RDs, ODs and/or their subtypes without restrictions on publication year, country or jurisdiction. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers conducted the search, screening and data extraction. Narrative synthesis, content analysis and descriptive analyses were conducted to extract and categorise definitions and criteria from these sources. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools.
resultsOnline searches identified 2712 published articles. Only 93 articles met the inclusion criteria, with 209 distinct definitions extracted. Specifically, 93 of these articles pertained to 119 RDs, 11 URDs, 67 ODs and 12 UODs. These definitions varied in their reliance on prevalence based and other contextual criteria.
conclusionPrevalence-based criteria alone pose challenges, as disease frequencies differ by country. Establishing country-specific definitions can enhance understanding, support intercountry evaluations, improve healthcare efficiency and access to ODs, and strengthen equity and equality in healthcare. Such efforts would also promote research and development and support better outcomes for patients with complex and rare conditions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021252701.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.