ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2025
Evaluation of sampling strategies for assessing lymphatic filariasis endemic status of a non-MDA district in South India.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIndia is moving towards the Lymphatic Filariasis (LF) elimination goal in 2027. Documentation on LF transmission status in the non-endemic and unsurveyed areas is crucial for WHO to certify that LF has been eliminated as a public health problem in the country. Appropriate sampling strategy is necessary to determine LF transmission status in the areas not under mass drug administration (MDA). We evaluated four different sampling strategies to identify the best tool(s) and indicator(s) that could be used to assess transmission interruption in a non-MDA district. METHODOLOGY: This study was conducted in Salem district in Tamil Nadu, India, during the period from June 2022 to June 2023. Four different sampling strategies, namely: (i) School based Mini-TAS (Mini-sTAS, n = 480), (ii) Community based Mini-TAS (Mini-cTAS, n = 480), (iii) Molecular xenomonitoring surveys (MX, n = 7500), and (iv) Purposive sampling of five high-risk sites (human, n = 1500 and vector surveys, n = 3750), were evaluated for their ability to assess LF transmission status in the area. These strategies were compared with a large-scale community survey (n = 10200) in 30 randomly selected sites (villages/wards) assessing human infection in the study area. While Filariasis Test strips (FTS) were used to assess circulating filarial antigen (CFA), night blood smears from CFA positives were collected to assess microfilaraemia (Mf). Mosquito samples collected from MX surveys were subjected to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays to assess the infection in vectors.
resultsThe results of the large-scale survey showed that the overall prevalence of CFA was 0.2% (95% CI: 0.1%-0.3%), below the critical threshold of 2%. Mini-sTAS and Mini-cTAS both showed that the CFA prevalence among children was below the elimination threshold of 2%. MX surveys showed the vector infection prevalence of 0.03% (95% CI: 0.01%-0.09%). These three strategies showed that the district is non-endemic and corroborate the results of a large-scale community survey. However, under the purposive sampling strategy, in two high-risk sites, either human or vector infection prevalence was above the respective elimination thresholds. Further, the administrative blocks in which these sites were situated shared borders with known LF endemic districts.
conclusionsThe sampling strategies that may be recommended for a non-MDA or unsurveyed district to assess LF transmission status would be to use (i) school- or community-based Mini-TAS or (ii) conduct MX surveys to classify them as endemic or non-endemic based on the pre-defined thresholds by WHO. For further confirmation, serosurveys among adults may be conducted in five purposively selected high-risk sites to identify pockets of LF transmission, if any.
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.