SynthesisMalaria journal2026
Efficacy of artemether-lumefantrine for uncomplicated plasmodium falciparum malaria treatment in mozambique: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Malaria journal, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMalaria remains a significant public health concern in Mozambique. Early diagnosis and the prompt use of effective drugs are essential for malaria control in endemic regions. This review aims to synthesize the existing evidence concerning the efficacy of artemether-lumefantrine (AL) in treating uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Mozambique.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis include studies evaluating the efficacy of AL using the World Health Organization standard protocol in Mozambique across children under 5 years of age and adults, regardless of publication year. The main outcome was efficacy, defined as the proportion of participants who had an adequate clinical and parasitological response, without or with Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) correction. Other outcomes included day 3 positivity rate, early treatment failure, late clinical failure and late parasitological failure. Data were obtained from electronic searches of PubMed and ScienceDirect citations. The Rayyan software assessed the adherence of all studies to the stipulated inclusion criteria. The studies' risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Pooled efficacy was calculated based on the per-protocol population. The heterogeneity between studies was assessed using Cochran's Q statistic, the τ
resultsSix studies, comprising 20 single-arm trials and including 1862 participants, were included in the analysis. Studies were conducted across Mozambique and enrolled both children and adults from the country's three main regions (South, Centre, and North). The pooled uncorrected efficacy of AL was 91.0% (95% CI 84.2-94.6), while the PCR-corrected efficacy was 98.3% (95% CI 96.9-99.1). During the 28-day follow-up period, early treatment failure was observed in 0.05% (95% CI 0.01-0.38) of participants. Late clinical failure and late parasitological failure occurred in 2.73% (95% CI 1.65-4.50) and 5.3% (95% CI 3.10-8.96) of participants, respectively. Recrudescence was observed in 1.8% (95% CI 1.20-2.70) of cases, whereas new infections accounted for 8.6% (95% CI 7.30-10.10). The day 3 parasite positivity rate remained low, at about 0.78% (95% CI 0.21-2.81).
conclusionsAL remains efficacious for the treatment of uncomplicated malaria with an efficacy above 90%, and may consequently continue to be used as the first-line treatment option in Mozambique among all vulnerable groups. Registration number prospero: 369991.
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.