Observational studyThe Lancet. Global health2025
Evidence-based decision making for malaria elimination applying the Freedom From Infection statistical framework in five malaria eliminating countries: an observational study.
Observational study in The Lancet. Global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Malaria serology for surveillance, insights into immunity, and vaccine development.Infection and immunity · 2026Review
- Applying novel Plasmodium Vivax serological exposure markers to quantify residual malaria transmission in the Philippines through repeated health facility surveys: the SMaRT study protocol.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRoutine surveillance is a pillar of malaria programmes, and the primary source of data used for decision making. However, any inference when relying on routine data to inform decision making is limited by how effective the system is at measuring the actual malaria burden. Here, we aimed to extend the Freedom From Infection (FFI) framework to produce species-specific estimates of surveillance system sensitivity and probability of freedom from malaria, combine multiple surveillance components including community case management and active case detection, and apply the FFI model in five malaria eliminating settings.
methodsMonthly routine data on Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax and health system factors were collected from 1515 facilities across five countries. Additionally, data from 12 community health workers and from 10 767 individuals from cross-sectional surveys (active case detection) were available. The data were analysed using FFI models accounting for multiple malaria species and surveillance components. The primary outcomes were the sensitivity of the surveillance system and the probability of malaria freedom.
findingsStrong surveillance systems were characterised by access to testing and treatment supplies, training on diagnostics and case management within the previous 12 months, and shorter estimated travel times to facilities. Only half of the facilities (841 of 1515 facilities for P falciparum and 771 of 1455 facilities for P vivax) had sufficient sensitivity to achieve and maintain a high probability of freedom, consistent with having achieved malaria elimination, with either passive case detection data alone or when combined with active case detection.
interpretationApplying the FFI model framework to malaria surveillance data can provide programmes with information to support decision making, specific to malaria species. When routine malaria surveillance systems are strong, they are sufficient to achieve and maintain a high probability of freedom. Including additional surveillance components such as community case management and active case detection with multiple diagnostic tools can help improve estimates for which routine malaria data alone are not sufficient to ensure confidence in elimination.
fundingThe Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Global Institute for Disease Elimination, and the Carter Center.
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.