Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30705975›Full record

ArticleParasite epidemiology and control2019

Viewpoint: Parasites and partnerships.

Marcel Tanner, Lukas Meier

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasite epidemiology and control, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Marcel TannerSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Switzerland.
Lukas MeierSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This text grew from a series of talks between a young science journalist trained in history and Marcel Tanner, global health expert with forty years of field experience in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. At the very core of the series was the question of the successes and failures of global health initiatives at various points in time and in different locations. It also tackled the issue of which of the lessons learned in global health over the past thirty years could possibly be of importance for future scholars and decision-makers in the field. The topics touched upon ranged from new global partnerships to sustain the efforts to eradicate malaria and other diseases to new innovations in personalised health, not least for the world's most neglected populations. The views expressed here are based on scientific findings as well as personal experiences and hence are also inherently subjective. Having said this, we still hope that the rich body of evidence assembled over years of extensive field-work and research partnership is of some value to all those how still dare to embark on the adventure of global health research in a spirit of "mutual learning for change."

Indexed as

Capacity buildingCôte d'IvoireInnovationInstitution buildingMalariaPlasmodium falciparumResearch partnershipTanzania

Identifiers

PMID30705975
PMCPMC6348339

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.