ArticleThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene2014
Response to the critique by Hahn and others entitled "Conservation and malaria in the Brazilian Amazon".
Article in The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Malaria transmission in landscapes with varying deforestation levels and timelines in the Amazon: a longitudinal spatiotemporal study.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Article
- Amazon deforestation drives malaria transmission, and malaria burden reduces forest clearing.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019Article
- Comparison of malaria incidence rates and socioeconomic-environmental factors between the states of Acre and Rondônia: a spatio-temporal modelling study.Malaria journal · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hahn and others have recently criticized our study, "Conservation efforts may increase malaria burden in the Brazilian Amazon," suggesting that results were flawed because of methodological limitations. Here, we briefly comment on some of their claims, showing that (1) several of their criticisms are misleading and others are incorrect, (2) they heavily criticize methods that they themselves have previously used, and (3) they selectively highlight some findings while ignoring others. We end this rebuttal by suggesting a way forward in this debate.
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.