Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33023880›Full record

SynthesisBMJ global health2020

Spatial and spatio-temporal methods for mapping malaria risk: a systematic review.

Julius Nyerere Odhiambo, Chester Kalinda, Peter M Macharia, Robert W Snow, Benn Sartorius

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Julius Nyerere OdhiamboDiscipline of Public Health Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa nyererejulius7@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-9817-1849
Chester KalindaDiscipline of Public Health Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Peter M MachariaPopulation Health Unit, Kenya Medical Research Institute-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID 0000-0003-3410-1881
Robert W SnowPopulation Health Unit, Kenya Medical Research Institute-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Benn SartoriusDiscipline of Public Health Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Kenya Medical Research Institute · KELondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of KwaZulu-Natal · ZAUniversity of Namibia · NA

Funding

EPA EP-C-15-003Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 103602Wellcome Trust 107769Wellcome Trust 203077Wellcome Trust 212176
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundApproaches in malaria risk mapping continue to advance in scope with the advent of geostatistical techniques spanning both the spatial and temporal domains. A substantive review of the merits of the methods and covariates used to map malaria risk has not been undertaken. Therefore, this review aimed to systematically retrieve, summarise methods and examine covariates that have been used for mapping malaria risk in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).

methodsA systematic search of malaria risk mapping studies was conducted using PubMed, EBSCOhost, Web of Science and Scopus databases. The search was restricted to refereed studies published in English from January 1968 to April 2020. To ensure completeness, a manual search through the reference lists of selected studies was also undertaken. Two independent reviewers completed each of the review phases namely: identification of relevant studies based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, data extraction and methodological quality assessment using a validated scoring criterion.

resultsOne hundred and seven studies met the inclusion criteria. The median quality score across studies was 12/16 (range: 7-16). Approximately half (44%) of the studies employed variable selection techniques prior to mapping with rainfall and temperature selected in over 50% of the studies. Malaria incidence (47%) and prevalence (35%) were the most commonly mapped outcomes, with Bayesian geostatistical models often (31%) the preferred approach to risk mapping. Additionally, 29% of the studies employed various spatial clustering methods to explore the geographical variation of malaria patterns, with Kulldorf scan statistic being the most common. Model validation was specified in 53 (50%) studies, with partitioning data into training and validation sets being the common approach.

conclusionsOur review highlights the methodological diversity prominent in malaria risk mapping across SSA. To ensure reproducibility and quality science, best practices and transparent approaches should be adopted when selecting the statistical framework and covariates for malaria risk mapping. Findings underscore the need to periodically assess methods and covariates used in malaria risk mapping; to accommodate changes in data availability, data quality and innovation in statistical methodology.

Indexed as

MalariaAfrica South of the SaharaBayes TheoremHumansReproducibility of ResultsSpatial Analysiscontrol strategiesgeographic information systemsmalariareviewsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33023880
PMCPMC7537142
OpenAlexW3090796405

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.