SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2022
The efficacy of soap against schistosome cercariae: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Replacing Text with Pictures for Multi-Lingual Health Education: Meeting the Needs of a Community with Low Literacy in Tanzania.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- A novel sustained-release agent based on disulfide-induced recombinant collagen hydrogels for the prevention and treatment ofMicrobiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Prevalence of humanEClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- The lethal effect of soap on Schistosoma mansoni cercariae in water.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSchistosomiasis is a parasitic disease that is endemic in 78 countries and affects almost 240 million people worldwide. It has been acknowledged that an integrated approach that goes beyond drug treatment is needed to achieve control and eventual elimination of the disease. Improving hygiene has been encouraged by World Health Organisation, and one aspect of good hygiene is using soap during water-contact activities, such as bathing and doing laundry. This hygiene practice might directly reduce the skin exposure to cercariae at transmission sites. A systematic review was carried out to investigate the efficacy of soap against schistosome cercariae and to identify the knowledge gaps surrounding this topic. METHODOLOGY: Six online databases were searched between 5th and 8th July of 2021. Records returned from these databases were screened to remove duplicates, and the remaining records were classified by reading titles, abstracts, and full texts to identify the included studies. The results were categorised into two groups based on two different protective mechanisms of soap (namely, damage to cercariae and protection of skin).
conclusionsLimited research has been conducted on the efficacy of soap against schistosome cercariae and only 11 studies met the criteria to be included in this review. The review demonstrates that soap has the potential of protecting people against schistosome cercariae and there are two protective aspects: (1) soap affects cercariae adversely; (2) soap on the skin prevents cercariae from penetrating the skin, developing into adult worms and producing eggs. Both aspects of protection were influenced by many factors, but the differences in the reported experimental conditions, such as the cercarial endpoint measurement used and the cercaria numbers used per water sample, lead to low comparability between the previous studies. This review indicates that more evidence is needed to inform hygiene advice for people living in schistosomiasis endemic areas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.