Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31978060›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2020

Molecular xenomonitoring as a post-MDA surveillance tool for global programme to eliminate lymphatic filariasis: Field validation in an evaluation unit in India.

Swaminathan Subramanian, Purushothaman Jambulingam, Kaliannagounder Krishnamoorthy, Neelavathi Sivagnaname, Candasamy Sadanandane, Venkatesan Vasuki, Chokkalingam Palaniswamy, Balakrishnan Vijayakumar, Adinarayanan Srividya, Hari Kishan K Raju

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Evaluating the Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Molecular Xenomonitoring Methods for Characterizing Community Burden of Lymphatic Filariasis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Molecular xenosurveillance ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Lymphatic filariasis transmission 10 years after stopping mass drug administration in the Gomoa west district of Ghana.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Swaminathan SubramanianICMR-Vector Control Research Centre, Indira Nagar, Puducherry, India.ORCID 0000-0003-0804-0763
Purushothaman JambulingamICMR-Vector Control Research Centre, Indira Nagar, Puducherry, India.ORCID 0000-0002-0962-6953
Kaliannagounder KrishnamoorthyICMR-Vector Control Research Centre, Indira Nagar, Puducherry, India.
Neelavathi SivagnanameICMR-Vector Control Research Centre, Indira Nagar, Puducherry, India.
Candasamy SadanandaneICMR-Vector Control Research Centre, Indira Nagar, Puducherry, India.
Venkatesan VasukiICMR-Vector Control Research Centre, Indira Nagar, Puducherry, India.
Chokkalingam PalaniswamyOffice of the Deputy Director of Health Services, Department of Public Health, Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Balakrishnan VijayakumarICMR-Vector Control Research Centre, Indira Nagar, Puducherry, India.
Adinarayanan SrividyaICMR-Vector Control Research Centre, Indira Nagar, Puducherry, India.
Hari Kishan K RajuICMR-Vector Control Research Centre, Indira Nagar, Puducherry, India.
Vector Control Research Centre · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLymphatic filariasis (LF) is targeted for elimination by the year 2020. As of 2017, 67 of the 72 endemic countries have implemented annual Mass Drug Administration (MDA) for interrupting LF transmission. Transmission Assessment Survey (TAS) is the recommended protocol to evaluate the impact of MDA and to decide when to stop MDA in an Evaluation Unit (EU, population ≤2 million). As the human infection levels go down with repeated MDA rounds, it becomes a challenge to select the appropriate survey methods to assess transmission interruption. This study validates a standard protocol for molecular xenomonitoring of infection in vectors (MX) at an EU as a complementary tool for TAS to stop MDA and its utility for post-MDA or post-validation surveillance. METHODOLOGY: The study was conducted in Cuddalore district, Tamil Nadu, India, which was found eligible for TAS after 15 annual rounds of MDA (4 with DEC alone and 11 with DEC plus albendazole). The district was divided into two EUs as per the TAS protocol and one EU was randomly selected for the study. A two-stage cluster design vector sampling, developed and validated at a sub-district level, was implemented in 30 randomly selected clusters in the EU. Female Culex quinquefasciatus were collected placing gravid traps overnight (1800-0600 hrs) inside the premises of systematically selected households. Pools of 20-25 blood-fed, semi-gravid and gravid Cx. quinquefasciatus were subjected to real-time quantitative PCR (polymerase chain reaction) assay for detecting Wuchereria bancrofti DNA. Pool infection rate (% of pools positive for W. bancrofti DNA), and the estimated prevalence of W. bancrofti DNA in mosquitoes and its 95% confidence interval were calculated. Additionally, in these 30 clusters, microfilaria (Mf) survey among individuals >5 years old was carried out. School-based TAS was conducted using Immunochromatographic Card Test (ICT) in the EU. Prepared itemized cost-menu for different cost components of MX survey and TAS were estimated and compared.

resultsMX survey showed that only 11 (3.1%) of the 358 pools (8850 Cx.quinquefasciatus females), collected from 30 clusters, were found positive for W. bancrofti DNA. The estimated vector infection rate was 0.13% (95% CI: 0.07-0.22%), below the provisional threshold (0.25%) for transmission interruption. Of 1578 children tested in the TAS, only four (0.25%) were positive for filarial antigenemia, and it is well below the critical cut-off (18 positives) for stopping MDA. Among 9804 persons tested in the 30 clusters, only four were found positive for Mf (0.04%; 95% CI: 0.01-0.1%). The Mf-prevalence was <1% threshold for transmission interruption in humans. The estimated costs for TAS and MX per EU were $14,104 USD and $14,259 USD respectively.

conclusionsThe result of MX protocol was in good agreement with that of TAS, providing evidence to recommend MX as a complementary tool to TAS to decide on stopping MDA. MX can also be a potential surveillance tool for post-MDA and post-validation phases as it could detect sites with residual infection and risk of resurgence of transmission. MX is economically feasible as its cost is slightly higher than that of TAS.

Indexed as

Mass Drug AdministrationAnimalsChildCulexDNA, HelminthElephantiasis, FilarialFemaleHumansIndiaMosquito VectorsPrevalenceReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionWuchereria bancroftiDNA, Helminth

Identifiers

PMID31978060
PMCPMC7001988
OpenAlexW3001823514

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.