Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39660160›Full record

ArticleLe infezioni in medicina2024

A brief history of Guinea worm research in the modern period, 1698-1931.

Jonathan David Roberts

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Le infezioni in medicina, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

Jonathan David RobertsSchool of Biology, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, England.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Guinea worm is a debilitating waterborne parasitic disease with a long history. This paper examines the ways guinea worm was understood in English-language scientific literature between 1688 and 1931. In the early eighteenth century, guinea worm was principally understood by English-speaking physicians as an exotic wonder of faraway lands. It became viewed as an African disease over the course of the eighteenth century, as transatlantic slavery exposed enslaved Africans to infection with the worm. Worms acquired in West Africa often emerged after arrival to the Caribbean, where the disease briefly established local transmission. However, British medicine only began to take any significant interest in guinea worm in the early nineteenth century, as British and British-employed troops in India began to contract the worm. This resulted in knowledge and specimens of guinea worm travelling to Britain, where they were used to develop the new science of zoology through the nineteenth century. Zoologists elsewhere, particularly in Germany, benefitted from British-Indian knowledge, which allowed Russian parasitologist Alexei Fedchenko to discover the full mechanism of guinea worm's transmission in Samarkand. This zoological knowledge, and zoological view of guinea worm, was then incorporated into the emerging tropical medicine of the 1890s and twentieth century. A long history of guinea worm therefore provides important insights into the circulation of knowledge along imperial networks, and into the history of tropical medicine and parasitology.

Indexed as

dracontiasisdracunculiasisGuinea wormhelminthiaseshistory of medicinehistory of scienceneglected tropical diseaseswaterborne diseases

Identifiers

PMID39660160
PMCPMC11627495

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.