Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27246503›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2016

Malaria research and its influence on anti-malarial drug policy in Malawi: a case study.

Chikondi Mwendera, Christiaan de Jager, Herbert Longwe, Kamija Phiri, Charles Hongoro, Clifford M Mutero

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

6 authors.

Chikondi MwenderaUniversity of Pretoria Centre for Sustainable Malaria Control (UP CSMC), School of Health Systems and Public Health (SHSPH), University of Pretoria, Private Bag X363, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa.
Christiaan de JagerUniversity of Pretoria Centre for Sustainable Malaria Control (UP CSMC), School of Health Systems and Public Health (SHSPH), University of Pretoria, Private Bag X363, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa. tiaan.dejager@up.ac.za.
Herbert LongweDepartment of Basic Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Malawi, Blantyre, Malawi.
Kamija PhiriSchool of Public Health and Family Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Malawi, Blantyre, Malawi.
Charles HongoroUniversity of Pretoria Centre for Sustainable Malaria Control (UP CSMC), School of Health Systems and Public Health (SHSPH), University of Pretoria, Private Bag X363, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa.
Clifford M MuteroUniversity of Pretoria Centre for Sustainable Malaria Control (UP CSMC), School of Health Systems and Public Health (SHSPH), University of Pretoria, Private Bag X363, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 1993, Malawi changed its first-line anti-malarial treatment for uncomplicated malaria from chloroquine to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP), and in 2007, it changed from SP to lumefantrine-artemether. The change in 1993 raised concerns about whether it had occurred timely and whether it had potentially led to early development of Plasmodium falciparum resistance to SP. This case study examined evidence from Malawi in order to assess if the policy changes were justifiable and supported by evidence.

methodsA systematic review of documents and published evidence between 1984 and 1993, when chloroquine was the first-line drug, and 1994 and 2007, when SP was the first-line drug, was conducted herein. The review was accompanied with key informant interviews.

resultsA total of 1287 publications related to malaria drug policy changes in sub-Saharan Africa were identified. Using the inclusion criteria, four articles from 1984 to 1993 and eight articles from 1994 to 2007 were reviewed. Between 1984 and 1993, three studies reported on chloroquine poor efficacy prompting policy change according to WHO's recommendation. From 1994 to 2007, four studies conducted in the early years of policy change reported a high SP efficacy of above 80%, retaining it as a first-line drug. Unpublished sentinel site studies between 2005 and 2007 showed a reduced efficacy of SP, influencing policy change to lumefantrine-artemether. The views of key informants indicate that the switch from chloroquine to SP was justified based on local evidence despite unavailability of WHO's policy recommendations, while the switch to lumefantrine-artemether was uncomplicated as the country was following the recommendations from WHO.

conclusionAmple evidence from Malawi influenced and justified the policy changes. Therefore, locally generated evidence is vital for decision making during policy change.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchDrug ResistanceEvidence-Based MedicineHealth PolicyAntimalarialsArtemetherArtemisininsChloroquineDrug CombinationsEthanolaminesFluorenesHumansLumefantrineMalariaMalaria, FalciparumMalawiAntimalarialsArtemetherArtemisininsChloroquineDrug CombinationsEthanolaminesfanasil, pyrimethamine drug combinationFluorenesLumefantrinePyrimethamineSulfadoxineAnti-malarial drug policyChloroquineLumefantrine-artemetherMalariaMalawiSulfadoxine-pyrimethamine

Identifiers

PMID27246503
PMCPMC4888534

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.