Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33563273›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2021

A comparative analysis of the outcome of malaria case surveillance strategies in Sri Lanka in the prevention of re-establishment phase.

W M Kumudunayana T de A W Gunasekera, Risintha Premaratne, Deepika Fernando, Muzrif Munaz, M G Y Piyasena, Devika Perera, Rajitha Wickremasinghe, K D N Prasad Ranaweera, Kamini Mendis

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Malaria journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  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

9 authors.

W M Kumudunayana T de A W GunasekeraAnti Malaria Campaign, 555/5 Public Health Building, Narahenpita, Sri Lanka.
Risintha PremaratneWorld Health Organization Regional Office for South-East Asia, New Delhi, India.
Deepika FernandoDepartment of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, 25 Kynsey Road, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Muzrif MunazAnti Malaria Campaign, 555/5 Public Health Building, Narahenpita, Sri Lanka.
M G Y PiyasenaAnti Malaria Campaign, 555/5 Public Health Building, Narahenpita, Sri Lanka.
Devika PereraAnti Malaria Campaign, 555/5 Public Health Building, Narahenpita, Sri Lanka.
Rajitha WickremasingheDepartment of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Kelaniya, P.O. Box 6, Thalagolla Road, 11010, Ragama, Sri Lanka.
K D N Prasad RanaweeraAnti Malaria Campaign, 555/5 Public Health Building, Narahenpita, Sri Lanka.
Kamini MendisDepartment of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, 25 Kynsey Road, Colombo, Sri Lanka. kaminimendis@gmail.com.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSri Lanka sustained its malaria-free status by implementing, among other interventions, three core case detection strategies namely Passive Case Detection (PCD), Reactive Case Detection (RACD) and Proactive Case Detection (PACD). The outcomes of these strategies were analysed in terms of their effectiveness in detecting malaria infections for the period from 2017 to 2019.

methodsComparisons were made between the surveillance methods and between years, based on data obtained from the national malaria database and individual case reports of malaria patients. The number of blood smears examined microscopically was used as the measure of the volume of tests conducted. The yield from each case detection method was calculated as the proportion of blood smears which were positive for malaria. Within RACD and PACD, the yield of sub categories of travel cohorts and spatial cohorts was ascertained for 2019.

resultsA total of 158 malaria cases were reported in 2017-2019. During this period between 666,325 and 725,149 blood smears were examined annually. PCD detected 95.6 %, with a yield of 16.1 cases per 100,000 blood smears examined. RACD and PACD produced a yield of 11.2 and 0.3, respectively. The yield of screening the sub category of travel cohorts was very high for RACD and PACD being 806.5 and 44.9 malaria cases per 100,000 smears, respectively. Despite over half of the blood smears examined being obtained by screening spatial cohorts within RACD and PACD, the yield of both was zero over all three years.

conclusionsThe PCD arm of case surveillance is the most effective and, therefore, has to continue and be further strengthened as the mainstay of malaria surveillance. Focus on travel cohorts within RACD and PACD should be even greater. Screening of spatial cohorts, on a routine basis and solely because people are resident in previously malarious areas, may be wasteful, except in situations where the risk of local transmission is very high, or is imminent. These findings may apply more broadly to most countries in the post-elimination phase.

Indexed as

Epidemiological MonitoringHumansMalariaPopulation SurveillanceSeasonsSri LankaActive case detectionMalaria case surveillanceMalaria in Sri LankaPassive case detectionPrevention of re-establishment of malariaProactive case detectionReactive case detectionSpatial cohortsTravel cohortsYield

Identifiers

PMID33563273
PMCPMC7871399

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.