ArticleInternational journal of public health2026
Evaluating indoor residual spraying in Côte d'Ivoire: the role of routine malaria data quality.
Article in International journal of public health, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Indoor residual spraying (IRS) was introduced in Côte d'Ivoire in 2020. We seek to identify potential factors that could compromise the quality of routine malaria incidence and determine how impact quantification of IRS on malaria incidence depends on data quality by emphasizing robust counterfactuals with contemporaneous covariates. Methods: Using mixed-effect models and correlation analysis we compare data from two sources (routine surveillance and re-digitized registries). To quantify decrease in incidence post intervention, we apply Bayesian structural time series analysis with posterior feature selection to determine impact confounders. Results: The presence of IRS, test positivity and reporting rates are significant factors impacting data quality. For high-quality data, we estimate a 12% resp. 19% decrease in incidence rate 1 year after the intervention, while for low-quality data estimates are 30% resp. 42%. Important covariates for counterfactual modeling are control district incidence, reporting and test positivity rates. Conclusion: Improvements in data quality by scrutinizing test positivity rates and health facility reporting can help avoid overly optimistic impact estimations for IRS. Incidence control districts remain inevitable in order to factor out impact confounders.
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.