↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of anti-malarial drug efficacy in the treatment of uncomplicated malaria in African children and adults using network meta-analysis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Comparison of anti-malarial drug efficacy in the treatment of uncomplicated malaria in African children and adults using network meta-analysis
Published in
Malaria Journal, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-1963-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Solange Whegang Youdom, Rachida Tahar, Leonardo K. Basco

Abstract

Artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) and novel drug combinations are available and used in African countries to treat uncomplicated malaria. Network meta-analysis methods are rarely and poorly applied for the comparison of their efficacies. This method was applied on a set of randomized controlled trials to illustrate its usefulness. A literature review available in Pubmed was conducted in July 2016. Eligible studies, conducted in sub-Saharan Africa, published between 2002 and 2016, focused on randomized controlled trials of at least two artemisinin-based combinations to treat uncomplicated malaria in children and adults. Agglomerate data were: the number of PCR-corrected adequate clinical and parasitological response (ACPR) on day 28, used as the primary enDHAPoint in all interventions, the number of participants and the list of treatments. A Bayesian random effect meta-analysis using a binary outcome was the method to compare the efficacy. Ranking measure was used to obtain a hierarchy of the competing interventions. In total, 76 articles were included; 13 treatment regimens were involved and tested in 36,001 patients. Using artemether-lumefantrine (AL) as the common comparator for the entire network, 12 relative treatment effects were estimated and indirect comparisons were obtained. Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHAP) was shown to be more effective than AL (odds ratio [OR] = 1.92; 95% CI 1.30-2.82; 19,163 patients), ASAQ (OR = 1.70; 95% CI 1.10-2.64; 14,433 patients), and amodiaquine-sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (AQSP): OR = 2.20; 95% CI 1.21-3.96; 8863 patients. Artesunate-amodiaquine (ASAQ) was comparable to AL (OR = 1.11; 95% CI 0.84-1.45; 21,235 patients). No significant difference was found between artesunate and mefloquine (ASMQ) and AL (OR = 1.20; 95% CI = 0.52-2.8; 13,824 participants). According to treatment ranking, among the WHO-recommended ACT medicines, DHAP was shown to be the most efficacious. Based on the available evidence, this study demonstrated the superiority of DHAP among currently recommended artemisinin-based combinations. The application of the methods described here may be helpful to gain better understanding of treatment efficacy and improve future decisions. However, more data are needed to allow robust conclusions about the results in comparison with novel drugs. Further surveillance of the efficacy of anti-malarial drugs and clinical trials are needed to closely follow the evolution of the epidemiology of drug-resistant malaria in Africa.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 19%
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 3 4%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 25 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 26 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 18 July 2021.
All research outputs
#6,966,272
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#2,090
of 5,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,646
of 317,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#70
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,592 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 317,591 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.