↓ Skip to main content

Factors contributing to anaemia after uncomplicated falciparum malaria in under five year-old Nigerian children ten years following adoption of artemisinin-based combination therapies as first-line…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Factors contributing to anaemia after uncomplicated falciparum malaria in under five year-old Nigerian children ten years following adoption of artemisinin-based combination therapies as first-line antimalarials
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2876-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Akintunde Sowunmi, Bayo Fatunmbi, Kazeem Akano, Olubunmi A. Wewe, Chimere Agomo, Finomo Finomo, Joy Ebenebe, Nma Jiya, Jose Ambe, Robinson Wammanda, Godwin Ntadom, Olugbenga Mokuolu, George Emechebe, Nnenna Ezeigwe, Adejumoke I. Ayede, Elsie O. Adewoye, Grace O. Gbotosho, Onikepe A. Folarin, Christian T. Happi, Stephen Oguche, Wellington A. Oyibo, Francis Useh

Abstract

Artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) have remained efficacious treatments of acute falciparum malaria in many endemic areas but there is little evaluation of factors contributing to the anaemia of acute falciparum malaria following long term adoption of ACTs as first-line antimalarials in African children. Malarious <5 year-olds randomized to artemether-lumefantrine, artesunate-amodiaquine or dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine treatments were followed up clinically for 6 weeks. Anaemia was defined as haematocrit <30%; Malaria-attributable fall in haematocrit (MAFH) as the difference between haematocrit 28-42 days post- and pre-treatment; Total MAFH (TMAFH) as the difference between days 28-42 haematocrit and the lowest haematocrit recorded in the first week post-treatment initiation; Drug-attributable fall in haematocrit (DAFH) as the difference between MAFH and TMAFH; Early appearing anaemia (EAA) as haematocrit <30% occurring within 1 week in children with normal haematocrit pre-treatment. Predictors of anaemia pre-treatment, EAA, MAFH or DAFH >4% were evaluated by stepwise multiple logistic regression models. Survival analysis and kinetics of DAFH were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier estimator and non-compartment model, respectively. Pre-treatment, 355 of 959 children were anaemic. Duration of illness >2 days and parasitaemia ≤10,000 μL-1 were independent predictors of anaemia pre-treatment. EAA occurred in 301 of 604 children. Predictors of EAA were age ≤ 15 months, history of fever pre-treatment and enrolment haematocrit ≤35%. The probabilities of progression from normal haematocrit to EAA were similar for all treatments. MAFH >4% occurred in 446 of 694 children; its predictors were anaemia pre-treatment, enrolment parasitaemia ≤50,000 μL-1, parasitaemia one day post-treatment initiation and gametocytaemia. DAFH >4% occurred in 334 of 719 children; its predictors were history of fever pre-and fever 1 day post-treatment initiation, haematocrit ≥37%, and parasitaemia >100,000 μL-1. In 432 children, declines in DAFH deficits were monoexponential with overall estimated half-time of 2.2d (95% CI 1.9-2.6). Area under curve of deficits in DAFH versus time and estimated half-time were significantly higher in non-anaemic children indicating greater loss of haematocrit in these children. After ten years of adoption of ACTs, anaemia is common pre-and early post-treatment, falls in haematocrit attributable to a single infection is high, and DAFH >4% is common and significantly lower in anaemic compared to non-anaemic Nigerian children. Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR) [ PACTR201709002064150, 1 March 2017 ].

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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 25%
Student > Master 12 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 20 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 28%
Social Sciences 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 25 36%
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 16 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,579,736
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#5,654
of 7,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#328,666
of 440,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#110
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,723 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 440,404 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 154 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.