Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33287809›Full record

ReviewMalaria journal2020

Prevention of re-establishment of malaria: historical perspective and future prospects.

S M Ibraheem Nasir, Sachini Amarasekara, Renu Wickremasinghe, Deepika Fernando, Preethi Udagama

Abstract readHistorical ArticleReview
In one paragraph

Review in Malaria journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Meta-Analysis of Human Antibodies AgainstFrontiers in immunology · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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.

S M Ibraheem NasirDepartment of Zoology & Environment Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Colombo, Colombo 3, Sri Lanka.
Sachini AmarasekaraDepartment of Zoology & Environment Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Colombo, Colombo 3, Sri Lanka.
Renu WickremasingheDepartment of Parasitology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Nugegoda, Sri Lanka.
Deepika FernandoDepartment of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Colombo 8, Sri Lanka.
Preethi UdagamaDepartment of Zoology & Environment Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Colombo, Colombo 3, Sri Lanka. preethi@zoology.cmb.ac.lk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5431-0715

Funding

National Research Council Sri Lanka NRC 16-13University of Sri Jayewardenepura (ASP/01/RE/MED/2017/41)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prevention of re-establishment (POR) refers to the prevention of malaria outbreak/epidemic occurrence or preventing re-establishment of indigenous malaria in a malaria-free country. Understanding the effectiveness of the various strategies used for POR is, therefore, of vital importance to countries certified as "malaria-free" or to the countries to be thus certified in the near future. This review is based on extensive review of literature on both the POR strategies and elimination schemes of countries, (i) that have reached malaria-free status (e.g. Armenia, Mauritius, Sri Lanka), (ii) those that are reaching pre-elimination stage (e.g. South Korea), and (iii) countries at the control phase (e.g. India). History has clearly shown that poorly implemented POR programmes can result in deadly consequences (e.g. Sri Lanka); conversely, there are examples of robust POR programmes that have sustained malaria free status that can serve as examples to countries working toward elimination. Countries awaiting malaria elimination status should pre-plan their POR strategies. Malaria-free countries face the risk of resurgence mostly due to imported malaria cases; thus, a robust passenger screening programme and cross border collaborations are crucial in a POR setting. In addition, sustained vigilance, and continued funding for the national anti-malarial campaign programme and for related research is of vital importance for POR. With distinct intrinsic potential for malaria in each country, tailor-made POR programmes are built through continuous and robust epidemiological and entomological surveillance, particularly in countries such as Sri Lanka with increased receptivity and vulnerability for malaria transmission. In summary, across all five countries under scrutiny, common strengths of the POR programmes are (i) a multipronged approach, (ii) strong passive, active, and activated passive case detection, (iii) Indoor residual spraying (IRS), and (iv) health education/awareness programmes.

Indexed as

Disease EradicationDisease OutbreaksMalariaDeveloping CountriesEndemic DiseasesEpidemiological MonitoringHistory, 15th CenturyHistory, 16th CenturyHistory, 17th CenturyHistory, 18th CenturyHistory, 19th CenturyHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHistory, MedievalHumansRiskImportation riskMalaria eliminationPlasmodium falciparumPlasmodium vivaxPrevention of re-establishmentReceptivitySurveillanceVulnerability

Identifiers

PMID33287809
PMCPMC7720033

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.