ArticlePLOS global public health2026
Target product profiles of laboratory and data analytical frameworks for genotyping to monitor antimalarial efficacy.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Classification of outcomes in antimalarial therapeutic efficacy studies with Aster.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Therapeutic efficacy studies (TESs) are the standard to evaluate antimalarial drug efficacy and guide malaria treatment policy. TESs are particularly relevant now, with resistance to first-line regimens emerging in sub-Saharan Africa. For TESs, a range of parasite genotyping and data analyses are available for genotype correction, a process to distinguish whether recurrent parasitemia after therapy is due to recrudescence of initially infecting parasites (treatment failure) or a new infection. The choice of methods for laboratory genotyping and data analyses can have a large effect on how outcomes are classified, and thereby on trial results. The currently recommended and most widely used laboratory and analytical methods for TES genotyping do not incorporate recent methodological advances and can produce biased results. As such current TES results can be difficult to interpret, especially in areas with high malaria transmission, such as much of sub-Saharan Africa. Thus, improving the accuracy and reliability of TES genotyping and data analysis are a major priority. To that end, we present target product profiles that outline key specifications for genetic data generation, processing, and data analysis, with the goal of creating rigorous and consistent community standards. Primary recommended specifications for laboratory methods include high sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility, and guidance on the number and genetic diversity of targets; criteria which are best and likely only met by amplicon sequencing. Primary recommendations for data analysis methods include high classification accuracy, accounting for errors in genotyping, and accounting for alleles matching by chance. All laboratory and data analysis methods used should be systematically validated and publicly documented so that TES results, which have major policy implications, can be relied upon for sound programmatic decision making.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.