↓ Skip to main content

Are Alternative Strategies Required to Accelerate the Global Elimination of Lymphatic Filariasis? Insights From Mathematical Models

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Are Alternative Strategies Required to Accelerate the Global Elimination of Lymphatic Filariasis? Insights From Mathematical Models
Published in
Clinical Infectious Diseases, June 2018
DOI 10.1093/cid/ciy003
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

With the 2020 target year for elimination of lymphatic filariasis (LF) approaching, there is an urgent need to assess how long mass drug administration (MDA) programs with annual ivermectin + albendazole (IA) or diethylcarbamazine + albendazole (DA) would still have to be continued, and how elimination can be accelerated. We addressed this using mathematical modeling. We used 3 structurally different mathematical models for LF transmission (EPIFIL, LYMFASIM, TRANSFIL) to simulate trends in microfilariae (mf) prevalence for a range of endemic settings, both for the current annual MDA strategy and alternative strategies, assessing the required duration to bring mf prevalence below the critical threshold of 1%. Three annual MDA rounds with IA or DA and good coverage (≥65%) are sufficient to reach the threshold in settings that are currently at mf prevalence <4%, but the required duration increases with increasing mf prevalence. Switching to biannual MDA or employing triple-drug therapy (ivermectin, diethylcarbamazine, and albendazole [IDA]) could reduce program duration by about one-third. Optimization of coverage reduces the time to elimination and is particularly important for settings with a history of poorly implemented MDA (low coverage, high systematic noncompliance). Modeling suggests that, in several settings, current annual MDA strategies will be insufficient to achieve the 2020 LF elimination targets, and programs could consider policy adjustment to accelerate, guided by recent monitoring and evaluation data. Biannual treatment and IDA hold promise in reducing program duration, provided that coverage is good, but their efficacy remains to be confirmed by more extensive field studies.

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 5 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 66 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 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 18%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Professor 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Student > Master 4 6%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 28 42%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Environmental Science 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 31 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 08 July 2025.
All research outputs
#7,101,833
of 33,704,742 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#9,861
of 20,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,835
of 370,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#105
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,704,742 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,549 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 370,778 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.