ArticlePloS one2026
Transmission status of lymphatic filariasis in hotspots of filarial infection, persistent districts of nepal during post-MDA surveillance.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe lymphatic filariasis (LF) elimination program in Nepal was launched in 2003, three years after the implementation of a global program to eliminate lymphatic filariasis globally. Based on antigenic prevalence below the cut-off value, i.e., ≤ 2% shown by the transmission assessment survey (TASI) report of 2017-2018, the program was stopped in Nepal. The report indicated that antigen-positive children were clustered in the community and considered hotspots. In order to find the status of lymphatic filariasis transmission at the community level, the present study was designed in the hotspots to assess antigenemia among the children born after mass drug administration (MDA), along with vector infection/infectivity in identified hotspots of Central Nepal.
methodsEach of two districts from the hilly and Terai regions of Central Nepal was selected based on comparatively high antigenic prevalence shown by previous TASI reports, and a descriptive cross-sectional study was designed. Two specific methods were employed: a Filarial Test Strip (Alere, Scorborough, ME) was used for antigenemia (n = 791) among children, and gravid traps were used for vector mosquito collection. Parous mosquitoes (n = 3344) were dissected for infection/or infectivity.
resultsThe result indicated that antigen-positive cases were unexpectedly increased in hotspots of one each from the hilly region (Dhading) and Terai region (Mahottari), i.e., above the critical level (≥ 2%). Antigen prevalence increased from baseline prevalence, which was significantly associated with the number of MDA rounds but not with MDA coverage. The upper confidence limit of antigenemia and Mf infection was above the critical cut-off value in hotspots of all selected endemic districts. However, none of the vector mosquitoes, such as Culex quinquefasciatus, was found to be infected with any larval stage of filarial nematode.
conclusionsThe result showed an increase in antigenemia and Mf prevalence in high baseline prevalence areas with fewer MDA rounds. Lack of correlation between filarial infection in humans and xenomonitoring could be low sensitivity of xenomonitoring by microscopy. TAS-based assessment of antigenemia in children for stopping MDA can be supplemented with molecular xenomonitoring in hotspots.
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.