Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29514598›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2018

Mapping transmission foci to eliminate malaria in the People's Republic of China, 2010-2015: a retrospective analysis.

Jun Feng, Hong Tu, Li Zhang, Shaosen Zhang, Shan Jiang, Zhigui Xia, Shuisen Zhou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Exploring the Relevance of Green Space and Epidemic Diseases Based on Panel Data in China from 2007 to 2016.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    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.

Jun FengNational Institute of Parasitic Diseases, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention; Key Laboratory of Parasite and Vector Biology, Ministry of Health; WHO Collaborating Centre for Tropical Diseases; National Center for International Research on Tropical Diseases, Shanghai, 200025, People's Republic of China.
Hong TuNational Institute of Parasitic Diseases, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention; Key Laboratory of Parasite and Vector Biology, Ministry of Health; WHO Collaborating Centre for Tropical Diseases; National Center for International Research on Tropical Diseases, Shanghai, 200025, People's Republic of China.
Li ZhangNational Institute of Parasitic Diseases, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention; Key Laboratory of Parasite and Vector Biology, Ministry of Health; WHO Collaborating Centre for Tropical Diseases; National Center for International Research on Tropical Diseases, Shanghai, 200025, People's Republic of China.
Shaosen ZhangNational Institute of Parasitic Diseases, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention; Key Laboratory of Parasite and Vector Biology, Ministry of Health; WHO Collaborating Centre for Tropical Diseases; National Center for International Research on Tropical Diseases, Shanghai, 200025, People's Republic of China.
Shan JiangNational Institute of Parasitic Diseases, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention; Key Laboratory of Parasite and Vector Biology, Ministry of Health; WHO Collaborating Centre for Tropical Diseases; National Center for International Research on Tropical Diseases, Shanghai, 200025, People's Republic of China.
Zhigui XiaNational Institute of Parasitic Diseases, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention; Key Laboratory of Parasite and Vector Biology, Ministry of Health; WHO Collaborating Centre for Tropical Diseases; National Center for International Research on Tropical Diseases, Shanghai, 200025, People's Republic of China.
Shuisen ZhouNational Institute of Parasitic Diseases, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention; Key Laboratory of Parasite and Vector Biology, Ministry of Health; WHO Collaborating Centre for Tropical Diseases; National Center for International Research on Tropical Diseases, Shanghai, 200025, People's Republic of China. shuisenzhou@126.com.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81602904
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChina has initiated the National Malaria Elimination Action Plan, which aims to eliminate malaria by 2020. However, the transmission of malaria occurs sporadically or in distinct foci, which greatly hampers progress toward elimination in China and other countries. The object of this study was to foci categorization and evaluates whether the response met the requirements issued by the nation or WHO.

methodsResidual transmissions were investigated and located with fine spatial resolution mapping from parasitological confirmed malaria cases by use of routine national surveillance data. The "1-3-7" timeframes were monitored for each focus between 2012 and 2015. Each focus was identified, and the application of appropriate measures was evaluated.

resultsA total of 5996 indigenous cases were recorded between 2010 and 2015; during this period, the number of cases declined by 99.1% (2010, n = 4262; 2015, n = 39). Most indigenous cases (92.5%) were reported in Anhui (n = 2326), Yunnan (n = 1373), Henan (n = 930), Hubei (n = 459), and Guizhou (n = 458). The temporal distribution showed that the indigenous malaria cases were clustered during the period of May to August. A total of 320 foci were carefully investigated and analyzed: 24 were active foci; 72, residual non-active foci; and 224 cleared-up foci. For the foci response evaluation, all the active foci were investigated within 7 days, while 80.2% of the residual non-active foci were responded within 7 days. In addition, reactive case detection (RACD) was carried out with 92.9% of the active foci and vector investigation carried out with 75%. For residual non-active foci, RACD was carried out with 83.2% and vector investigation with 78.2% of the foci.

conclusionsThis study used nationwide data to categorize foci in China and evaluate the response of these areas during the control and elimination phases. Our approach stratifies future control responses by identifying those locations where the elimination of endemic transmission is needed, such as in the counties at the China-Myanmar border and in Tibet. In addition, this study will help local CDC staff to reassess their needs and responses against different types of foci during the elimination and post-elimination phases.

Indexed as

AnimalsChinaDatabases, FactualGovernment ProgramsHumansIncidenceMalariaRetrospective StudiesChinaFociMalaria elimination

Identifiers

PMID29514598
PMCPMC5840925

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.