ArticlePLOS global public health2026
Monitoring COVID-19 occurrence in a resource-limited setting - COVID-19 sentinel surveillance in Malawi.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2026. 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.
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The routine COVID-19 surveillance in Malawi that relied on retrospective reporting could not efficiently steer timely measures to the rapidly evolving pandemic. To monitor real-time changes in infections and inform the COVID-19 response, we implemented an active sentinel surveillance system from July to December 2022. Symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with SARS-CoV-2 in selected health facilities (HFs) and anyone aged ≥5 years entering at Point of Entry (PoEs) sites were eligible to participate. Self-reported epidemiological and clinical data, and nasopharyngeal specimens were collected from 9,305 participants. A higher overall SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positivity rate was observed at HFs, 8.9% among symptomatic and 6.5% among asymptomatic patients, versus 3.5% at PoEs. The positivity trends among symptomatic and asymptomatic patient groups showed a similar pattern throughout the period. This active surveillance complemented routine surveillance, especially during a low incidence period and highlighted the need to target both symptomatic and asymptomatic populations.
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.