Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20098724›Full record

SynthesisPLoS medicine2010

The relationship between anti-merozoite antibodies and incidence of Plasmodium falciparum malaria: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Freya J I Fowkes, Jack S Richards, Julie A Simpson, James G Beeson

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 223 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
223citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
31.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

223 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 356 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Meta-Analysis of Human Antibodies AgainstFrontiers in immunology · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. eLife · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The N-terminal region of malaria vaccine candidatebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  20. Article

163 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Freya J I FowkesThe Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Jack S Richards
Julie A Simpson
James G Beeson
University of Melbourne · AUWalter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne of the criteria to objectively prioritize merozoite antigens for malaria vaccine development is the demonstration that naturally acquired antibodies are associated with protection from malaria. However, published evidence of the protective effect of these antibodies is conflicting. METHODS AND

findingsWe performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies examining the association between anti-merozoite immunoglobin (Ig) G responses and incidence of Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Two independent researchers searched six databases and identified 33 studies that met predefined inclusion and quality criteria, including a rigorous definition of symptomatic malaria. We found that only five studies were performed outside sub-Saharan Africa and that there was a deficiency in studies investigating antibodies to leading vaccine candidates merozoite surface protein (MSP)-1(42) and erythrocyte binding antigen (EBA)-175. Meta-analyses of most-studied antigens were conducted to obtain summary estimates of the association between antibodies and incidence of P. falciparum malaria. The largest effect was observed with IgG to MSP-3 C terminus and MSP-1(19) (responders versus nonresponders, 54%, 95% confidence interval [CI] [33%-68%] and 18% [4%-30%] relative reduction in risk, respectively) and there was evidence of a dose-response relationship. A tendency towards protective risk ratios (RR<1) was also observed for individual study estimates for apical membrane antigen (AMA)-1 and glutamate-rich protein (GLURP)-R0. Pooled estimates showed limited evidence of a protective effect for antibodies to MSP-1 N-terminal regions or MSP-1-EGF (epidermal growth factor-like modules). There was no significant evidence for the protective effect for MSP-2 (responders versus nonresponders pooled RR, MSP-2(FC27) 0.82, 95% CI 0.62-1.08, p = 0.16 and MSP-2(3D7) 0.92, 95% CI 0.75-1.13, p = 0.43). Heterogeneity, in terms of clinical and methodological diversity between studies, was an important issue in the meta-analysis of IgG responses to merozoite antigens.

conclusionsThese findings are valuable for advancing vaccine development by providing evidence supporting merozoite antigens as targets of protective immunity in humans, and to help identify antigens that confer protection from malaria. Further prospective cohort studies that include a larger number of lead antigens and populations outside Africa are greatly needed to ensure generalizability of results. The reporting of results needs to be standardized to maximize comparability of studies. We therefore propose a set of guidelines to facilitate the uniform reporting of malaria immuno-epidemiology observational studies. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Indexed as

Antibodies, ProtozoanAntigens, ProtozoanDrug DesignEvidence-Based MedicineHumansIncidenceMalaria, FalciparumMalaria VaccinesMerozoitesPlasmodium falciparumProtozoan ProteinsAntibodies, ProtozoanAntigens, ProtozoanMalaria VaccinesProtozoan Proteins

Identifiers

PMID20098724
PMCPMC2808214
OpenAlexW1967015536

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.