SynthesisPloS one2011
Chemoprophylaxis in contacts of patients with cholera: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guidelines for the management of paediatric cholera infection: a systematic review of the evidence.Paediatrics and international child health · 2018Pooled it
- ICP1 bacteriophage treatment antagonizes colonization of the zebrafish larval intestine byMicrobiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Case-area targeted interventions during a large-scale cholera epidemic: A prospective cohort study in Northeast Nigeria.PLoS medicine · 2024Observational
- Implementation of targeted cholera response activities, Cameroon.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2023Article
- Review
- Diagnosis, Management, and Future Control of Cholera.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2022Review
- Article
- Identifying transferable lessons from cholera epidemic responses by Médecins Sans Frontières in Mozambique, Malawi and the Democratic Republic of Congo, 2015-2018: a scoping review.Conflict and health · 2022Article
- Inference is bliss: Simulation for power estimation for an observational study of a cholera outbreak intervention.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2022Observational
- Description of the targeted water supply and hygiene response strategy implemented during the cholera outbreak of 2017-2018 in Kinshasa, DRC.BMC infectious diseases · 2020Article
- Estimating effectiveness of case-area targeted response interventions against cholera in Haiti.eLife · 2019Article
- The case-area targeted rapid response strategy to control cholera in Haiti: a four-year implementation study.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2019Article
- Cholera.Current epidemiology reports · 2018Article
- Cholera diagnosis in human stool and detection in water: protocol for a systematic review of available technologies.Systematic reviews · 2018Article
- The potential impact of case-area targeted interventions in response to cholera outbreaks: A modeling study.PLoS medicine · 2018Article
- Antimicrobial Resistance Risks of Cholera Prophylaxis for United Nations Peacekeepers.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2017Article
- A cocktail of three virulent bacteriophages prevents Vibrio cholerae infection in animal models.Nature communications · 2017Article
- Strategies to Prevent Cholera Introduction during International Personnel Deployments: A Computational Modeling Analysis Based on the 2010 Haiti Outbreak.PLoS medicine · 2016Article
- Low detection of Vibrio cholerae carriage in healthcare workers returning to 12 Latin American countries from Haiti.Epidemiology and infection · 2015Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is a pressing need for effective measures to prevent the spread of cholera. Our systematic review assesses the effects of chemoprophylaxis in preventing cholera among exposed contacts. METHODS AND
findingsWe considered published and unpublished reports of studies up to July 2011. For this we searched: PubMed (1966 to July, 2011), Embase (1980 to July 2011), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (6; 2011), LILACS (1982 to July, 2011), the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (July 2011) and references of identified publications. We included controlled clinical trials (randomized and non-randomized) in which chemoprophylaxis was used to prevent cholera among patient contacts. The main outcome measures were hospitalization and laboratory diagnosis of cholera in contacts for cholera patients. We assessed the risk of bias. We identified 2638 references and these included 2 randomized trials and 5 controlled trials that added up to a total of 4,154 participants. The risk of bias scored high for most trials. The combined results from two trials found that chemoprophylaxis reduced hospitalization of contacts during the follow-up period by 8-12 days (2826 participants; RR 0.54 95% CI 0.40-0.74;I² 0%). A meta-analysis of five trials found a significant reduction in disease among contacts with at least one positive sample who received chemoprophylaxis during the overall follow-up (range 4-15 days) (1,414 participants; RR 0.35 95% CI 0.18-0.66;I² 74%). A significant reduction in the number of positive samples was also found with chemoprophylaxis (3 CCT; 6,918 samples; RR 0.39 95% CI 0.29-0.51;I² 0%).
conclusionOur findings suggest that chemoprophylaxis has a protective effect among household contacts of people with cholera but the results are based on studies with a high risk of bias. Hence, there is a need for adequate reliable research that allows balancing benefits and harms by evaluating the effects of chemoprophylaxis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.