Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31506245›Full record

ReviewTrends in parasitology2019

Evaluating the Evidence for Lymphatic Filariasis Elimination.

Emma L Davis, Lisa J Reimer, Lorenzo Pellis, T Deirdre Hollingsworth

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in parasitology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Artificial intelligence and lymphedema: State of the art.Journal of clinical and translational research · 2022
    Review
  7. What Can Modeling Tell Us About Sustainable End Points for Neglected Tropical Diseases?Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2021
    Article
  8. Serological Evaluation of Onchocerciasis and Lymphatic Filariasis Elimination in the Bakoye and Falémé Foci, Mali.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2021
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

4 authors.

Emma L DavisUniversity of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK. Electronic address: Emma.Davis@warwick.ac.uk.
Lisa J ReimerLiverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool L3 5QA, UK.
Lorenzo PellisUniversity of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
T Deirdre HollingsworthBig Data Institute (BDI), Oxford University, Old Road Campus, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the global drive for elimination of lymphatic filariasis (LF), 15 countries have achieved validation of elimination as a public health problem (EPHP). Recent empirical evidence has demonstrated that EPHP does not always lead to elimination of transmission (EOT). Here we show how the probability of elimination explicitly depends on key biological parameters, many of which have been poorly characterized, leading to a poor evidence base for the elimination threshold. As more countries progress towards EPHP it is essential that this process is well-informed, as prematurely halting treatment and surveillance programs could pose a serious threat to global progress. We highlight that refinement of the weak empirical evidence base is vital to understand drivers of elimination and inform long-term policy.

Indexed as

Disease EradicationElephantiasis, FilarialHealth PolicyHumansbreak-pointeliminationlymphatic filariasismodelling

Identifiers

PMID31506245
PMCPMC7413036

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.