Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27171193›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2016

Between-Country Inequalities in the Neglected Tropical Disease Burden in 1990 and 2010, with Projections for 2020.

Wilma A Stolk, Margarete C Kulik, Epke A le Rutte, Julie Jacobson, Jan Hendrik Richardus, Sake J de Vlas, Tanja A J Houweling

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 34 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Wilma A StolkDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Margarete C KulikDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Epke A le RutteDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Julie JacobsonBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Jan Hendrik RichardusDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Sake J de VlasDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Tanja A J HouwelingDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NLBill & Melinda Gates Foundation · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) has set ambitious time-bound targets for the control and elimination of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). Investing in NTDs is not only seen as good value for money, but is also advocated as a pro-poor policy since it would improve population health in the poorest populations. We studied the extent to which the disease burden from nine NTDs (lymphatic filariasis, onchocerciasis, schistosomiasis, soil-transmitted helminths, trachoma, Chagas disease, human African trypanosomiasis, leprosy, visceral leishmaniasis) was concentrated in the poorest countries in 1990 and 2010, and how this would change by 2020 in case the WHO targets are met. PRINCIPAL

findingsOur analysis was based on 1990 and 2010 data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2010 study and on projections of the 2020 burden. Low and lower-middle income countries together accounted for 69% and 81% of the global burden in 1990 and 2010 respectively. Only the soil-transmitted helminths and Chagas disease caused a considerable burden in upper-middle income countries. The global burden from these NTDs declined by 27% between 1990 and 2010, but reduction largely came to the benefit of upper-middle income countries. Achieving the WHO targets would lead to a further 55% reduction in the global burden between 2010 and 2020 in each country income group, and 81% of the global reduction would occur in low and lower-middle income countries.

conclusionsThe GBD 2010 data show the burden of the nine selected NTDs in DALYs is strongly concentrated in low and lower-middle income countries, which implies that the beneficial impact of NTD control eventually also largely comes to the benefit of these same countries. While the nine NTDs became increasingly concentrated in developing countries in the 1990-2010 period, this trend would be rectified if the WHO targets were met, supporting the pro-poor designation.

Indexed as

Cost of IllnessTropical MedicineHumansIncomeNeglected DiseasesTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID27171193
PMCPMC4865216
OpenAlexW2374310651

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.