ReviewPLoS neglected tropical diseases2012
Disability measurement for lymphatic filariasis: a review of generic tools used within morbidity management programs.
Review in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- From genome to drug targets: computational subtractive genomics reveals novel anti-filarial targets in Wuchereria bancrofti and identifies plant-based inhibitors of β-1,4-mannosyltransferase, a high-priority target.Molecular diversity · 2026Article
- A mouse infection model and long-term lymphatic endothelium co-culture system to evaluate drugs against adult Brugia malayi.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2022Article
- The History of Bancroftian Lymphatic Filariasis in Australasia and Oceania: Is There a Threat of Re-Occurrence in Mainland Australia?Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2018Review
- Perceived threat and benefit toward community compliance of filariasis' mass drug administration in Pekalongan district, Indonesia.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2018Article
- Experiences of a Community-Based Lymphedema Management Program for Lymphatic Filariasis in Odisha State, India: An Analysis of Focus Group Discussions with Patients, Families, Community Members and Program Volunteers.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2016Article
- Comparison of three quality of life instruments in lymphatic filariasis: DLQI, WHODAS 2.0, and LFSQQ.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2014Article
- The use of focus groups to develop a culturally relevant quality of life tool for lymphatic filariasis in Bangladesh.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2014Article
- Cognitive testing of the WHOQOL-BREF Bangladesh tool in a northern rural Bangladeshi population with lymphatic filariasis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2013Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lymphatic filariasis (LF)-related disability affects 40 million people globally, making LF the leading cause of physical disability in the world. Despite this, there is limited research into how the impacts of LF-related disability are best measured. This article identifies the tools currently being used to measure LF-related disability and reviews their applicability against the known impacts of LF. The findings from the review show that the generic disability tools currently used by LF programs fail to measure the majority of known impacts of LF-related disability. The findings from the review support the development of an LF-specific disability measurement tool and raise doubt about the suitability of generic disability tools to assess disability related to neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) globally.
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.