↓ Skip to main content

Challenges for achieving safe and effective radical cure of Plasmodium vivax: a round table discussion of the APMEN Vivax Working Group

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
12 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
198 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Challenges for achieving safe and effective radical cure of Plasmodium vivax: a round table discussion of the APMEN Vivax Working Group
Published in
Malaria Journal, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-1784-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kamala Thriemer, Benedikt Ley, Albino Bobogare, Lek Dysoley, Mohammad Shafiul Alam, Ayodhia P. Pasaribu, Jetsumon Sattabongkot, Elodie Jambert, Gonzalo J. Domingo, Robert Commons, Sarah Auburn, Jutta Marfurt, Angela Devine, Mohammad M. Aktaruzzaman, Nayeem Sohel, Rinzin Namgay, Tobgyel Drukpa, Surender Nath Sharma, Elvieda Sarawati, Iriani Samad, Minerva Theodora, Simone Nambanya, Sonesay Ounekham, Rose Nanti Binti Mudin, Garib Da Thakur, Leo Sora Makita, Raffy Deray, Sang-Eun Lee, Leonard Boaz, Manjula N. Danansuriya, Santha D. Mudiyanselage, Nipon Chinanonwait, Suravadee Kitchakarn, Johnny Nausien, Esau Naket, Thang Ngo Duc, Ha Do Manh, Young S. Hong, Qin Cheng, Jack S. Richards, Rita Kusriastuti, Ari Satyagraha, Rintis Noviyanti, Xavier C. Ding, Wasif Ali Khan, Ching Swe Phru, Zhu Guoding, Gao Qi, Akira Kaneko, Olivo Miotto, Wang Nguitragool, Wanlapa Roobsoong, Katherine Battle, Rosalind E. Howes, Arantxa Roca-Feltrer, Stephan Duparc, Ipsita Pal Bhowmick, Enny Kenangalem, Jo-Anne Bibit, Alyssa Barry, David Sintasath, Rabindra Abeyasinghe, Carol H. Sibley, James McCarthy, Lorenz von Seidlein, J. Kevin Baird, Ric N. Price

Abstract

The delivery of safe and effective radical cure for Plasmodium vivax is one of the greatest challenges for achieving malaria elimination from the Asia-Pacific by 2030. During the annual meeting of the Asia Pacific Malaria Elimination Network Vivax Working Group in October 2016, a round table discussion was held to discuss the programmatic issues hindering the widespread use of primaquine (PQ) radical cure. Participants included 73 representatives from 16 partner countries and 33 institutional partners and other research institutes. In this meeting report, the key discussion points are presented and grouped into five themes: (i) current barriers for glucose-6-phosphate deficiency (G6PD) testing prior to PQ radical cure, (ii) necessary properties of G6PD tests for wide scale deployment, (iii) the promotion of G6PD testing, (iv) improving adherence to PQ regimens and (v) the challenges for future tafenoquine (TQ) roll out. Robust point of care (PoC) G6PD tests are needed, which are suitable and cost-effective for clinical settings with limited infrastructure. An affordable and competitive test price is needed, accompanied by sustainable funding for the product with appropriate training of healthcare staff, and robust quality control and assurance processes. In the absence of quantitative PoC G6PD tests, G6PD status can be gauged with qualitative diagnostics, however none of the available tests is currently sensitive enough to guide TQ treatment. TQ introduction will require overcoming additional challenges including the management of severely and intermediately G6PD deficient individuals. Robust strategies are needed to ensure that effective treatment practices can be deployed widely, and these should ensure that the caveats are outweighed by  the benefits of radical cure for both the patients and the community. Widespread access to quality controlled G6PD testing will be critical.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users 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 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 197 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 15%
Student > Master 24 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 12%
Student > Bachelor 20 10%
Lecturer 13 7%
Other 32 16%
Unknown 57 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Other 30 15%
Unknown 67 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 15 December 2019.
All research outputs
#3,422,034
of 24,457,696 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#798
of 5,764 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,084
of 313,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#29
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,457,696 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,764 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
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 313,758 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.