Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29983573›Full record

ArticlePharmaceutical medicine2018

Evaluation of Two Strategies for Community-Based Safety Monitoring during Seasonal Malaria Chemoprevention Campaigns in Senegal, Compared with the National Spontaneous Reporting System.

Jean-Louis A Ndiaye, Ibrahima Diallo, Youssoupha NDiaye, Ekoue Kouevidjin, Ibrahima Aw, Fassiatou Tairou, Tidiane Ndoye, Christine M Halleux, Isaac Manga, Mbaye Niang Dieme and 6 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmaceutical medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. 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

16 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Jean-Louis A Ndiaye1Department of Parasitology, Cheikh Anta Diop University, Thies University, Dakar, Senegal.
Ibrahima DialloNational Malaria Control Programme, Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, Dakar, Senegal.
Youssoupha NDiayeSedhiou Medical Region, Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, Sedhiou, Senegal.
Ekoue Kouevidjin4Department of Parasitology, Cheikh Anta Diop University, Dakar, Senegal.
Ibrahima AwSedhiou Medical Region, Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, Sedhiou, Senegal.
Fassiatou Tairou4Department of Parasitology, Cheikh Anta Diop University, Dakar, Senegal.
Tidiane Ndoye5Department of Social Sciences, Cheikh Anta Diop University, Dakar, Senegal.
Christine M Halleux6The Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, World Health Organization, 1121 Geneva 27, Switzerland.
Isaac Manga4Department of Parasitology, Cheikh Anta Diop University, Dakar, Senegal.
Mbaye Niang Dieme4Department of Parasitology, Cheikh Anta Diop University, Dakar, Senegal.
Medoune NdiopNational Malaria Control Programme, Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, Dakar, Senegal.
Babacar Faye4Department of Parasitology, Cheikh Anta Diop University, Dakar, Senegal.
Piero Olliaro6The Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, World Health Organization, 1121 Geneva 27, Switzerland.
Corinne S Merle6The Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, World Health Organization, 1121 Geneva 27, Switzerland.
Oumar Gaye4Department of Parasitology, Cheikh Anta Diop University, Dakar, Senegal.
Paul Milligan7Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3430-3395
Cheikh Anta Diop University · SNWorld Health Organization · CHUniversity of London · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K012126/1World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) using sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine plus amodiaquine has been introduced in 12 African countries. Additional strategies for safety monitoring are needed to supplement national systems of spontaneous reporting that are known to under represent the incidence of adverse reactions.

objectivesThis study aimed to determine if adverse event (AE) reporting could be improved using a smartphone application provided to village health workers, or by active follow-up using a symptom card provided to caregivers.

methodsTwo strategies to improve reporting of AEs during SMC campaigns were evaluated, in comparison with the national system of spontaneous reporting, in 11 health post areas in Senegal. In each health post, an average of approximately 4000 children under 10 years of age received SMC treatment each month for 3 months during the 2015 malaria transmission season-a total of 134,000 treatments. In three health posts (serving approximately 14,000 children), caregivers were encouraged to report any adverse reactions to the nurse at the health post or to a community health worker (CHW) in their village, who had been trained to use a smartphone application to report the event (enhanced spontaneous reporting). In two health posts (approximately 10,000 children), active follow-up of children at home was organized after each SMC campaign to ask about AEs that caregivers had been asked to record on a symptom card (active surveillance). Six health posts (approximately 23,000 children) followed the national system of spontaneous reporting using the national reporting (yellow) form. Each AE report was assessed by a panel to determine likely association with SMC drugs.

resultsThe incidence of reported AEs was 2.4, 30.6, and 21.6 per 1000 children treated per month, using the national system, enhanced spontaneous reporting, and active surveillance, respectively. The most commonly reported symptoms were vomiting, fever, and abdominal pain. The incidence of vomiting, known to be caused by amodiaquine, was similar using both innovative methods (10/1000 in the first month, decreasing to 2.5/1000 in the third month). Despite increased surveillance, no serious adverse drug reactions were detected.

conclusionTraining CHWs in each village and health facility staff to report AEs using a mobile phone application led to much higher reporting rates than through the national system. This approach is feasible and acceptable, and could be further improved by strengthening laboratory investigation and the collection of control data immediately prior to SMC campaigns.

Identifiers

PMID29983573
PMCPMC6006231
OpenAlexW2805364487

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.