Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21910854›Full record

ReviewMalaria journal2011

Interactions between worms and malaria: good worms or bad worms?

Mathieu Nacher

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Malaria journal, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Prevalence and Associated Factors ofHealth science reports · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. An investigation ofInternational journal for parasitology. Parasites and wildlife · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. HIV-1 Impact on Malaria Transmission: A Complex and Relevant Global Health Concern.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021
    Review
  20. Topological data analysis to model the shape of immune responses during co-infections.Communications in nonlinear science & numerical simulation · 2020
    Article
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

1 author.

Mathieu NacherCentre d'investigation Clinique épidémiologie Clinique Antilles-Guyane, Centre Hospitalier de Cayenne, French Guiana. mathieu.nacher@ch-cayenne.fr

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the past decade there have been an increasing number of studies on co-infections between worms and malaria. However, this increased interest has yielded results that have been at times conflicting and made it difficult to clearly grasp the outcome of this interaction. Despite the heterogeneity of study designs, reviewing the growing body of research may be synthesized into some broad trends: Ascaris emerges mostly as protective from malaria and its severe manifestations, whereas hookworm seems to increase malaria incidence. As efforts are made to de-worm populations in malaria endemic areas, there is still no clear picture of the impact these programmes have in terms of quantitative and qualitative changes in malaria.

Indexed as

AncylostomatoideaAnimalsAscariasisAscarisComorbidityHookworm InfectionsHumansIncidenceMalaria

Identifiers

PMID21910854
PMCPMC3192711

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.