SynthesisTropical medicine & international health : TM & IH2025
Current Gaps in Survey Design and Analysis for Molecular Xenomonitoring of Vector-Borne Neglected Tropical Diseases: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Current Gaps in Survey Design and Analysis for Molecular Xenomonitoring of Vector-Borne Neglected Tropical Diseases: A Systematic Review.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2025Pooled it
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesMolecular xenomonitoring is a surveillance method for vector-borne diseases where vectors are tested for molecular pathogen markers. Testing is typically on pools (groups) of vectors. Molecular xenomonitoring is a sensitive and efficient complement to human-based surveillance. However, existing statistical guidance for the appropriate design and analysis of molecular xenomonitoring surveys has key gaps. We reviewed the literature to understand the common objectives, survey designs, and analysis methods for molecular xenomonitoring surveys for two vector-borne neglected tropical diseases: lymphatic filariasis and onchocerciasis.
methodsWe searched peer-reviewed literature for studies published between 1999 and 2022 that presented the results of surveys that collected vectors in field surveys and used a molecular test for the presence of the causative pathogens for lymphatic filariasis and onchocerciasis.
resultsOut of 1225 works identified in the database search, a total of 76 studies (lymphatic filariasis: 45; onchocerciasis: 31) across 30 countries were included in the review. The five most common objectives were determination of elimination status after mass drug administration, comparison of vector and human infection indicators, evaluation of an intervention, comparison of vector collection methods and comparison of laboratory techniques. Nearly all studies used a cluster or hierarchical sampling framework to collect vectors (72/76), but very few studies accounted for this in their designs (2/76) or analysis (1/76). While few studies justified the number of vectors included in each pool (5/76), nearly all studies accounted for pooled testing when calculating pathogen prevalence from results (69/76). Few studies justified the number or selection of collection sites or total sample size (16/76).
conclusionsPublished molecular xenomonitoring surveys for lymphatic filariasis and onchocerciasis had varied objectives, study designs and analysis methods, but proper consideration of survey design was frequently missing from the analysis. There is a need for statistical tools and guidance to enable appropriate design and analysis of molecular xenomonitoring surveys while accounting for disease, objective and context-specific considerations.
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.