ArticleCommunications medicine2024
Household-level effects of seasonal malaria chemoprevention in the Gambia.
Article in Communications medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety and efficacy of repeat ivermectin mass drug administrations for malaria control (RIMDAMAL II): a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cluster-randomised, parallel-group trial.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2025Trial
- Toward Setting Minimum and Optimal Data to Report for Malaria Molecular Surveillance with Targeted Sequencing: The "What" and "Why".The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2025Article
- Impact of seasonal malaria chemoprevention: a plausibility evaluation of routine data from health facilities in three implementing states in Nigeria.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- Evaluation of knowledge, perception, and attitude of malaria burden in the Upper River region of The Gambia.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- Antenatal care surveillance for monitoring malaria prevalence and intervention coverage: a multicountry analysis.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn 2022 the WHO recommended the discretionary expansion of the eligible age range for seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC) to children older than 4 years. Older children are at lower risk of clinical disease and severe malaria so there has been uncertainty about the cost-benefit for national control programmes. However, emerging evidence from laboratory studies suggests protecting school-age children reduces the infectious reservoir for malaria and may significantly impact on transmission. This study aimed to assess whether these effects were detectable in the context of a routinely delivered SMC programme.
methodsIn 2021 the Gambia extended the maximum eligible age for SMC from 4 to 9 years. We conducted a prospective population cohort study over the 2021 malaria transmission season covering 2210 inhabitants of 10 communities in the Upper River Region, and used a household-level mixed modelling approach to quantify impacts of SMC on malaria transmission.
resultsWe demonstrate that the hazard of clinical malaria in older participants aged 10+ years ineligible for SMC decreases by 20% for each additional SMC round per child 0-9 years in the same household. Older inhabitants also benefit from reduced risk of asymptomatic infections in high SMC coverage households. Spatial autoregression tests show impacts are highly localised, with no detectable spillover from nearby households.
conclusionsEvidence for the transmission-reducing effects of extended-age SMC from routine programmes implemented at scale has been previously limited. Here we demonstrate benefits to the entire household, indicating such programmes may be more cost-effective than previously estimated.
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.