↓ Skip to main content

Amodiaquine for treating malaria

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Amodiaquine for treating malaria
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2003
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000016
Pubmed ID
Authors

Piero L Olliaro, Paola Mussano

Abstract

Amodiaquine has been widely used to treat malaria. Fatal adverse reactions have been reported in adults taking it for prophylaxis. This has led some authorities to suggest it is withdrawn as a first line treatment for malaria. To compare amodiaquine with chloroquine or sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine for treating uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group specialized trials register (February 2003), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2003), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2003), EMBASE (1980 to December 2002), LILACS (February 2003). We contacted researchers in the field and pharmaceutical companies. Randomised and quasi-randomised trials. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. 56 studies included, mostly from Africa. Treatment allocation was adequately concealed in three trials, and unclear or inadequate in the remainder. Amodiaquine was more effective than chloroquine for parasite clearance (day 7, Peto odds ratio 4.42 (95% confidence interval 3.65 to 5.35); day 14, Peto odds ratio 6.44 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.09 to 8.15). Comparisons with sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine were more mixed, with sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine more effective on day 28 (Peto odds ratio 0.41; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.61). No significant difference for adverse events was observed between amodiaquine and chloroquine and sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine. Reported adverse effects were minor or moderate. No life threatening events were detected. There is evidence to support the continued use of amodiaquine to treat uncomplicated malaria, although local drug resistance patterns need to be considered. Monitoring for adverse events should continue.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
France 1 1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 79 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 23%
Student > Master 12 14%
Other 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 17 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 8%
Unspecified 7 8%
Chemistry 6 7%
Other 15 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 27 November 2016.
All research outputs
#3,639,764
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,879
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,679
of 368,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#99
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 368,641 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.