↓ Skip to main content

Varying efficacy of intermittent preventive treatment for malaria in infants in two similar trials: public health implications

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, September 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Varying efficacy of intermittent preventive treatment for malaria in infants in two similar trials: public health implications
Published in
Malaria Journal, September 2007
DOI 10.1186/1475-2875-6-132
Pubmed ID
Authors

Clara Menendez, David Schellenberg, Eusebio Macete, Pedro Aide, Elizeus Kahigwa, Sergi Sanz, John J Aponte, Jahit Sacarlal, Hassan Mshinda, Marcel Tanner, Pedro L Alonso

Abstract

Intermittent preventive treatment (IPTi) with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) in infants resulted in different estimates of clinical malaria protection in two trials that used the same protocol in Ifakara, Tanzania, and Manhiça, Mozambique. Understanding the reasons for the discrepant results will help to elucidate the action mechanism of this intervention, which is essential for rational policy formulation. A comparative analysis of two IPTi trials that used the same study design, follow-up, intervention, procedures and assessment of outcomes, in Tanzania and Mozambique was undertaken. Children were randomised to receive either SP or placebo administered 3 times alongside routine vaccinations delivered through the Expanded Program on Immunisation (EPI). Characteristics of the two areas and efficacy on clinical malaria after each dose were compared. The most relevant difference was in ITN's use ; 68% in Ifakara and zero in Manhiça. In Ifakara, IPTi was associated with a 53% (95% CI 14.0; 74.1) reduction in the risk of clinical malaria between the second and the third dose; during the same period there was no significant effect in Manhiça. Similarly, protection against malaria episodes was maintained in Ifakara during 6 months after dose 3, but no effect of IPTi was observed in Manhiça. The high ITN coverage in Ifakara is the most likely explanation for the difference in IPTi efficacy on clinical malaria. Combination of IPTi and ITNs may be the most cost-effective tool for malaria control currently available, and needs to be explored in current and future studies. Manhiça study registration number: NCT00209795Ifakara study registration number: NCT88523834.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 1%
Unknown 88 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 24%
Student > Master 15 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 5 5%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 17 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 37%
Social Sciences 9 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 5%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 21 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 August 2016.
All research outputs
#14,858,374
of 22,883,326 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#4,248
of 5,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,730
of 71,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,883,326 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,579 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 71,464 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.