↓ Skip to main content

Methylene blue for malaria in Africa: results from a dose-finding study in combination with chloroquine

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, October 2006
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 (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
patent
3 patents
wikipedia
7 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
85 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 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
Methylene blue for malaria in Africa: results from a dose-finding study in combination with chloroquine
Published in
Malaria Journal, October 2006
DOI 10.1186/1475-2875-5-84
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter E Meissner, Germain Mandi, Boubacar Coulibaly, Steffen Witte, Théophile Tapsoba, Ulrich Mansmann, Jens Rengelshausen, Wolfgang Schiek, Albrecht Jahn, Ingeborg Walter-Sack, Gerd Mikus, Jürgen Burhenne, Klaus-Dieter Riedel, R Heiner Schirmer, Bocar Kouyaté, Olaf Müller

Abstract

The development of safe, effective and affordable drug combinations against malaria in Africa is a public health priority. Methylene blue (MB) has a similar mode of action as chloroquine (CQ) and has moreover been shown to selectively inhibit the Plasmodium falciparum glutathione reductase. In 2004, an uncontrolled dose-finding study on the combination MB-CQ was performed in 435 young children with uncomplicated falciparum malaria in Burkina Faso (CQ monotherapy had a > 50% clinical failure rate in this area in 2003). Three serious adverse events (SAE) occurred of which one was probably attributable to the study medication. In the per protocol safety analysis, there were no dose specific effects. The overall clinical and parasitological failure rates by day 14 were 10% [95% CI (7.5%, 14.0%)] and 24% [95% CI (19.4%, 28.3%)], respectively. MB appears to have efficacy against malaria, but the combination of CQ-MB is clearly not effective in the treatment of malaria in Africa.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
Portugal 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 99 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Other 10 10%
Other 21 20%
Unknown 17 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 22%
Chemistry 16 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 5%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 23 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 June 2021.
All research outputs
#2,181,754
of 21,370,427 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#493
of 5,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,700
of 322,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,370,427 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,338 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 322,183 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them