Reply to Harrington et al.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

1. Healthcare provider and pregnant women's perspectives on the implementation of intermittent screening and treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine for malaria in pregnancy in western Kenya: a qualitative study.Malaria journal · 2021
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  The A581G Mutation in the Gene Encoding Plasmodium falciparum Dihydropteroate Synthetase Reduces the Effectiveness of Sulfadoxine-Pyrimethamine Preventive Therapy in Malawian Pregnant Women.2015
• Comment on
  Defending the Use of Sulfadoxine-Pyrimethamine for Intermittent Preventive Treatment for Malaria in Pregnancy: A Short-Sighted Strategy.2016

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as