Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35680541›Full record

ReviewTrends in parasitology2022

The assessment of antimalarial drug efficacy in vivo.

Nicholas J White

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in parasitology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Parasitological efficacy of seasonal malaria chemoprevention in Nampula, northern Mozambique.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Application of a new highly multiplexed amplicon sequencing tool to evaluatemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A proposed method of grading malaria chemoprevention efficacy.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Nicholas J WhiteMahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand; Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, Oxford University, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: nickw@tropmedres.ac.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 033417Wellcome Trust 093956
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently recommended methods of assessing the efficacy of uncomplicated falciparum malaria treatment work less well in high-transmission than in low-transmission settings. There is also uncertainty how to assess intermittent preventive therapies and seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC), and Plasmodium vivax radical cure. A pharmacometric antimalarial resistance monitoring (PARM) approach is proposed specifically for evaluating slowly eliminated antimalarial drugs in areas of high transmission. In PARM antimalarial drug concentrations at recurrent parasitaemia are measured to identify outliers (i.e., recurrent parasitaemias in the presence of normally suppressive drug concentrations) and to evaluate changes over time. PARM requires characterization of pharmacometric profiles but should be simpler and more sensitive than current molecular genotyping-based methodologies. PARM does not require parasite genotyping and can be applied to the assessment of both prevention and treatment.

Indexed as

AntimalarialsMalariaMalaria, FalciparumMalaria, VivaxDrug ResistanceHumansParasitemiaPlasmodium falciparumPlasmodium vivaxAntimalarialsantimalarial drugschemopreventionmalariapharmacometric antimalarial resistance monitoring (PARM)pharmacometricstreatment

Identifiers

PMID35680541
PMCPMC7613059

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.