Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26890487›Full record

SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2016

Productivity Loss Related to Neglected Tropical Diseases Eligible for Preventive Chemotherapy: A Systematic Literature Review.

Edeltraud J Lenk, William K Redekop, Marianne Luyendijk, Adriana J Rijnsburger, Johan L Severens

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 102 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Epidemiology and infection · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. How Does the Proportion of Never Treatment Influence the Success of Mass Drug Administration Programs for the Elimination of Lymphatic Filariasis?Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024
    Article
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Edeltraud J LenkInstitute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
William K RedekopInstitute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Marianne LuyendijkInstitute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Adriana J RijnsburgerMedical Delta, Delft, The Netherlands.
Johan L SeverensInstitute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus University Rotterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNeglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) not only cause health and life expectancy loss, but can also lead to economic consequences including reduced ability to work. This article describes a systematic literature review of the effect on the economic productivity of individuals affected by one of the five worldwide most prevalent NTDs: lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, schistosomiasis, soil-transmitted helminths (ascariasis, trichuriasis, and hookworm infection) and trachoma. These diseases are eligible to preventive chemotherapy (PCT). METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsEleven bibliographic databases were searched using different names of all NTDs and various keywords relating to productivity. Additional references were identified through reference lists from relevant papers. Of the 5316 unique publications found in the database searches, thirteen papers were identified for lymphatic filariasis, ten for onchocerciasis, eleven for schistosomiasis, six for soil-transmitted helminths and three for trachoma. Besides the scarcity in publications reporting the degree of productivity loss, this review revealed large variation in the estimated productivity loss related to these NTDs.

conclusionsIt is clear that productivity is affected by NTDs, although the actual impact depends on the type and severity of the NTD as well as on the context where the disease occurs. The largest impact on productivity loss of individuals affected by one of these diseases seems to be due to blindness from onchocerciasis and severe schistosomiasis manifestations; productivity loss due to trachoma-related blindness has never been studied directly. However, productivity loss at an individual level might differ from productivity loss at a population level because of differences in the prevalence of NTDs. Variation in estimated productivity loss between and within diseases is caused by differences in research methods and setting. Publications should provide enough information to enable readers to assess the quality and relevance of the study for their purposes.

Indexed as

AnimalsChemopreventionHumansNeglected DiseasesTropical MedicineWork

Identifiers

PMID26890487
PMCPMC4758606
OpenAlexW2283809401

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.