ArticleMalaria journal2018
Evaluating the quality of routinely reported data on malaria commodity stocks in Guinea, 2014-2016.
Article in Malaria journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Contextual Factors to Improve Implementation of Malaria Chemoprevention in Children: A Systematic Review.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2024Pooled it
- Malaria epidemiology and anti-malarial drug efficacy in Guinea: a review of clinical and molecular studies.Malaria journal · 2021Review
- Quality of Malaria Case Management and Reporting at Public Health Facilities in Six Health Districts in Guinea, 2018.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnsuring malaria commodity availability at health facilities is a cornerstone of malaria control. Since 2013, the Guinea National Malaria Control Programme has been routinely collecting data on stock levels of key malaria commodities through a monthly routine malaria information system (RMIS). In parallel, biannual end-user verification (EUV) surveys have also assessed malaria commodity availability at a subset of health facilities, potentially representing a duplication of efforts.
methodsData on 12 malaria commodity stock levels verified during four EUV surveys conducted between 2014 and 2016 was compared to data for the corresponding months submitted by the same health facilities through the RMIS. The sensitivity and specificity of the RMIS in detecting stock-outs was calculated, as was the percent difference between average stock levels reported through the two systems.
resultsOf the 171 health facilities visited during the four EUV surveys, 129 (75%) had data available in the RMIS. Of 351 commodity stock-outs observed during the EUV in the sampled reporting health facilities, 256 (73%) were also signaled through the corresponding RMIS reports. When the presence of malaria commodity stocks was confirmed during the EUV surveys, the RMIS also reported available stock 87% (677/775) of the time. For all commodities, the median percent difference in average stock levels between the EUV and RMIS was 4% (interquartile range - 7 to 27%).
conclusionThe concordance between stock levels reported through the RMIS and those verified during the EUV visits provides certain evidence that RMIS data can inform quantification and procurement decisions. However, lower than acceptable rates of reporting and incomplete detection of stock-outs from facilities that do report suggest that further systems strengthening is needed to improve RMIS reporting completeness and data quality.
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.