Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26161032›Full record

ReviewTropical medicine and health2015

Social Sciences for the Prevention of Blindness.

Pablo Goldschmidt

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Tropical medicine and health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Pablo GoldschmidtLaboratorie du Centre Hospitalier National d'Ophtalmologie des Quinze-Vingts , 28, rue de Charenton, Paris 75012, France.
Centre hospitalier national d'ophtalmologie des Quinze-Vingts · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Organizations working for the elimination of Chlamydia-triggered blindness (trachoma) follow the WHO SAFE strategy (surgery for trichiasis, antibiotics, face washing and environmental changes) with the aim to achieve a minimum of 80% of children with clean faces in endemic communities, mass treatment covering the whole district with trachoma rates of 10% or more and surveillance plans. Trachoma recurrence that is common after implementing the SAFE strategy 3, 5 or even 7 times evidence that the cognitive processes requiring assimilation and integration of knowledge did not register with parents, caretakers and children. Moreover, repeated awareness campaigns to improve hygiene did not systematically produce irreversible changes of behavior in neglected populations. In view of this evidence, the rational behind mass drug administration as the mainstay of preventable blindness elimination demands a wider scope than simple mathematical models. The reluctance to see disappointing outcomes that leads to repeated interventions may suggest from a sociologic point of view that the strategies are products of those evaluating the activities of those who fund them and vice versa. A similar articulation emerges for reciprocal interactions between researchers and those judging the pertinence and quality of their work. So far, the lack of autocritic elimination strategy approaches may expose inbred circles that did not properly grasp the fact that antibiotics, trichiasis surgery and education limited to improvement of hygiene are inefficient if not associated with long-term basic educational actions in schools.

Indexed as

antibioticsChlamydiaeducationhygieneinbredSAFEscholasticismschoolingsociologytrachoma elimination

Identifiers

PMID26161032
PMCPMC4491490
OpenAlexW2093743467

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.