↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
49 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
147 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.
Article details
Title
Unsupervised primaquine for the treatment of Plasmodium vivax malaria relapses in southern Papua: A hospital-based cohort study
Published in
PLOS Medicine, August 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002379
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Primaquine is the only licensed drug for eradicating Plasmodium vivax hypnozoites and, therefore, preventing relapses of vivax malaria. It is a vital component of global malaria elimination efforts. Primaquine is efficacious when supervised in clinical trials, but its effectiveness in real-world settings is unknown. We aimed to determine whether unsupervised primaquine was effective for preventing re-presentation to hospital with vivax malaria in southern Papua, Indonesia. Routinely-collected hospital surveillance data were used to undertake a pragmatic comparison of the risk of re-presentation to hospital with vivax malaria in patients prescribed dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHP) combined with primaquine versus those patients prescribed DHP alone. The omission of primaquine was predominantly due to 3 stock outages. Individual clinical, pharmacy, and laboratory data were merged using individual hospital identification numbers and the date of presentation to hospital. Between April 2004 and December 2013, there were 86,797 documented episodes of vivax malaria, of which 62,492 (72.0%) were included in the analysis. The risk of re-presentation with vivax malaria within 1 year was 33.8% (95% confidence Interval [CI] 33.1%-34.5%) after initial monoinfection with P. vivax and 29.2% (95% CI 28.1%-30.4%) after mixed-species infection. The risk of re-presentation with P. vivax malaria was higher in children 1 to <5 years of age (49.6% [95% CI 48.4%-50.9%]) compared to patients 15 years of age or older (24.2% [95% CI 23.4-24.9%]); Adjusted Hazard Ratio (AHR) = 2.23 (95% CI 2.15-2.31), p < 0.001. Overall, the risk of re-presentation was 37.2% (95% CI 35.6%-38.8%) in patients who were prescribed no primaquine compared to 31.6% (95% CI 30.9%-32.3%) in those prescribed either a low (≥1.5 mg/kg and <5 mg/kg) or high (≥5 mg/kg) dose of primaquine (AHR = 0.90 [95% CI 0.86-0.95, p < 0.001]). Limiting the comparison to high dose versus no primaquine in the period during and 12 months before and after a large stock outage resulted in minimal change in the estimated clinical effectiveness of primaquine (AHR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.97, p = 0.003). Our pragmatic study avoided the clinical influences associated with prospective study involvement but was subject to attrition bias caused by passive follow-up. Unsupervised primaquine for vivax malaria, prescribed according to the current World Health Organization guidelines, was associated with a minimal reduction in the risk of clinical recurrence within 1 year in Papua, Indonesia. New strategies for the effective radical cure of vivax malaria are needed in resource-poor settings.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 147 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 16%
Student > Master 19 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Lecturer 8 5%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 51 35%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 4%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 59 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 09 December 2024.
All research outputs
#1,009,083
of 32,391,057 outputs
Outputs from PLOS Medicine
#1,352
of 5,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,772
of 343,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS Medicine
#26
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,391,057 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,027 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 85.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 343,734 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.