ArticleJournal of theoretical biology2018
Mathematical analysis to prioritise strategies for malaria elimination.
Article in Journal of theoretical biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reactive, self-administered malaria treatment against asymptomatic malaria infection: results of a cluster randomized controlled trial in The Gambia.Malaria journal · 2021Trial
- Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of reactive, targeted indoor residual spraying for malaria control in low-transmission settings: a cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial in South Africa.Lancet (London, England) · 2021Trial
- How useful are malaria risk maps at the country level? Perceptions of decision-makers in Kenya, Malawi and the Democratic Republic of Congo.Malaria journal · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Malaria and some other tropical diseases are currently targeted for elimination and eventually eradication. Since resources are limited, prioritisation of countries or areas for elimination is often necessary. However, this prioritisation is frequently conducted in an ad hoc manner. Lower transmission areas are usually targeted for elimination first, but for some areas this necessitates long and potentially expensive surveillance programs while transmission is eliminated from neighbouring higher transmission areas. We use a mathematical model to compare the implications of prioritisation choices in reducing overall burden and costs. We show that when the duration of the elimination program is independent of the transmission potential, burden is always reduced most by targeting high transmission areas first, but to reduce costs the optimal ordering depends on the actual transmission levels. In general, when overall transmission potential is low and the surveillance cost per secondary case compared to the cost per imported case is low, targeting the higher transmission area for elimination first is favoured.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.