Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28335815›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2017

Skin snips have no role in programmatic evaluations for onchocerciasis elimination: a reply to Bottomley et al.

Mark L Eberhard, Ed W Cupp, Charles R Katholi, Frank O Richards, Thomas R Unnasch

Open access · goldAbstract readLetterComment
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Onchocerciasis Elimination: Progress and Challenges.Research and reports in tropical medicine · 2020
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Loa loa Microfilariae in Skin Snips: Consequences for Onchocerciasis Monitoring and Evaluation in L. loa-Endemic Areas.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Mark L EberhardDivision of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, 30329, USA. mle1@cdc.gov.
Ed W CuppDepartment of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, 36849, USA.
Charles R KatholiDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA.
Frank O RichardsThe Carter Center, 1 Copenhill, 453 Freedom Parkway NE, Atlanta, GA, 30307, USA.
Thomas R UnnaschDepartment of Global Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 33620, USA.
Auburn University · USCarter Center · USDivision of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · USUniversity of South Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A critique of the recommendation that skin snips be used for post-MDA surveillance of formerly endemic onchocerciasis areas is provided. After considering several fundamental aspects of the use of this methodology within the context of prolonged mass distribution of ivermectin, we argue that skin-snipping has no value for monitoring onchocerciasis elimination programs.

Indexed as

Mass Drug AdministrationDrug MonitoringFilaricidesIvermectinOnchocerciasisSkinFilaricidesIvermectinOnchocerciasisProgram evaluationSkin snips

Identifiers

PMID28335815
PMCPMC5364671
OpenAlexW2601197270

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.