Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30902052›Full record

ReviewMalaria journal2019

The past, present and future of anti-malarial medicines.

Edwin G Tse, Marat Korsik, Matthew H Todd

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Malaria journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 158 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
158citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

158 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Diverse Biological Activity of Pyrimidine Derivatives: A Review.Current drug discovery technologies · 2026
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Antiplasmodial Activity of Methylangolensate FromJournal of tropical medicine · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

98 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Edwin G TseSchool of Chemistry, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. etse6978@uni.sydney.edu.au.
Marat KorsikSchool of Chemistry, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Matthew H ToddSchool of Chemistry, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. matthew.todd@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7096-4751

Funding

Australian Research Council LP150101226
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Great progress has been made in recent years to reduce the high level of suffering caused by malaria worldwide. Notably, the use of insecticide-treated mosquito nets for malaria prevention and the use of artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) for malaria treatment have made a significant impact. Nevertheless, the development of resistance to the past and present anti-malarial drugs highlights the need for continued research to stay one step ahead. New drugs are needed, particularly those with new mechanisms of action. Here the range of anti-malarial medicines developed over the years are reviewed, beginning with the discovery of quinine in the early 1800s, through to modern day ACT and the recently-approved tafenoquine. A number of new potential anti-malarial drugs currently in development are outlined, along with a description of the hit to lead campaign from which it originated. Finally, promising novel mechanisms of action for these and future anti-malarial medicines are outlined.

Indexed as

AntimalarialsHumansMalariaAntimalarialsDrug developmentDrug discoveryMalariaMechanism of actionPlasmodium

Identifiers

PMID30902052
PMCPMC6431062

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.