↓ Skip to main content

Use of malaria rapid diagnostic tests by community health workers in Afghanistan: cluster randomised trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 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
Use of malaria rapid diagnostic tests by community health workers in Afghanistan: cluster randomised trial
Published in
BMC Medicine, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0891-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Toby Leslie, Mark Rowland, Amy Mikhail, Bonnie Cundill, Barbara Willey, Asif Alokozai, Ismail Mayan, Anwar Hasanzai, Sayed Habibullah Baktash, Nader Mohammed, Molly Wood, Habib-u-Rahman Rahimi, Baptiste Laurent, Cyril Buhler, Christopher J. M. Whitty

Abstract

The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends parasitological diagnosis of malaria before treatment, but use of malaria rapid diagnostic tests (mRDTs) by community health workers (CHWs) has not been fully tested within health services in south and central Asia. mRDTs could allow CHWs to diagnose malaria accurately, improving treatment of febrile illness. A cluster randomised trial in community health services was undertaken in Afghanistan. The primary outcome was the proportion of suspected malaria cases correctly treated for polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed malaria and PCR negative cases receiving no antimalarial drugs measured at the level of the patient. CHWs from 22 clusters (clinics) received standard training on clinical diagnosis and treatment of malaria; 11 clusters randomised to the intervention arm received additional training and were provided with mRDTs. CHWs enrolled cases of suspected malaria, and the mRDT results and treatments were compared to blind-read PCR diagnosis. In total, 256 CHWs enrolled 2400 patients with 2154 (89.8%) evaluated. In the intervention arm, 75.3% (828/1099) were treated appropriately vs. 17.5% (185/1055) in the control arm (cluster adjusted risk ratio: 3.72, 95% confidence interval 2.40-5.77; p < 0.001). In the control arm, 85.9% (164/191) with confirmed Plasmodium vivax received chloroquine compared to 45.1% (70/155) in the intervention arm (p < 0.001). Overuse of chloroquine in the control arm resulted in 87.6% (813/928) of those with no malaria (PCR negative) being treated vs. 10.0% (95/947) in the intervention arm, p < 0.001. In the intervention arm, 71.4% (30/42) of patients with P. falciparum did not receive artemisinin-based combination therapy, partly because operational sensitivity of the RDTs was low (53.2%, 38.1-67.9). There was high concordance between recorded RDT result and CHW prescription decisions: 826/950 (87.0%) with a negative test were not prescribed an antimalarial. Co-trimoxazole was prescribed to 62.7% of malaria negative patients in the intervention arm and 15.0% in the control arm. While introducing mRDT reduced overuse of antimalarials, this action came with risks that need to be considered before use at scale: an appreciable proportion of malaria cases will be missed by those using current mRDTs. Higher sensitivity tests could be used to detect all cases. Overtreatment with antimalarial drugs in the control arm was replaced with increased antibiotic prescription in the intervention arm, resulting in a probable overuse of antibiotics. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01403350 . Prospectively registered.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 121 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 18%
Researcher 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 7%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 32 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 37 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 July 2017.
All research outputs
#15,469,035
of 22,986,950 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#3,079
of 3,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,087
of 313,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#45
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,986,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 313,004 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.