Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39502782›Full record

ArticleResearch square2024

Truth is relative; Client report versus provider report, a post-modern analysis of data from a trial in the private retail medicine sector.

Tabitha Chepkwony, Mark E Amunga, Emmah Kimachas, Joseph Kipkoech, Emily Robie, Aggrey Wekesa, David Arthur, Elizabeth L Turner, John A Gallis, Lucy Abel and 8 more

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in Research square, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

18 authors.

Tabitha ChepkwonyAMPATH.
Mark E AmungaAMPATH.
Emmah KimachasAMPATH.
Joseph KipkoechAMPATH.
Emily RobieDuke University NC.
Aggrey WekesaDuke Global Inc.
David ArthurDuke University NC.
Elizabeth L TurnerDuke University NC.
John A GallisDuke University NC.
Lucy AbelAMPATH.
George AmbaniAMPATH.
Theodoor VisserClinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI).
Meley WoldeghebrielClinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI).
Sameen BaburClinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI).
Aaron WoolseyClinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI).
Diana MenyaMoi University.
Jeremiah LaktabaiMoi University.
Wendy P O'MearaDuke University NC.

Funding

Malaria diagnostic testing and conditional subsidies to target ACTs in the retail sector: the TESTsmART trialR01AI141444 · NIAID · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI PRUDHOMMEOMEARA, WENDY · 2018 to 2022
$3.6M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI141444
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In malaria-endemic countries, private retail outlets are a major source of antimalarials for individuals experiencing an acute febrile illness. However, there remains a challenge in how the decision to dispense the drugs is made. The lack of malaria diagnostic tools in the retail sector leads to a presumptive approach to diagnosis and overuse of ACTs. The TESTsmART study trained retail outlet attendants to perform malaria rapid diagnostic tests (mRDTs) in conjunction with a mobile application to capture testing and drug dispensing data. Concurrently, febrile clients were randomly selected for exit interviews outside the outlet, and analogous information about testing and drug purchasing was recorded based on self-report. A small subset of clients enrolled in exit interviews were also asked to participate in exit

Indexed as

ACTExit interviewsMalariamRDTPrivate retail sectorSubsidiesSubsidy

Identifiers

PMID39502782
PMCPMC11537346

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.