↓ Skip to main content

Adherence to treatment with artemether–lumefantrine or amodiaquine–artesunate for uncomplicated malaria in children in Sierra Leone: a randomized trial

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, 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)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Adherence to treatment with artemether–lumefantrine or amodiaquine–artesunate for uncomplicated malaria in children in Sierra Leone: a randomized trial
Published in
Malaria Journal, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12936-018-2370-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristin Banek, Emily L. Webb, Samuel Juana Smith, Daniel Chandramohan, Sarah G. Staedke

Abstract

Prompt, effective treatment of confirmed malaria cases with artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) is a cornerstone of malaria control. Maximizing adherence to ACT medicines is key to ensuring treatment effectiveness. This open-label, randomized trial evaluated caregiver adherence to co-formulated artemether-lumefantrine (AL) and fixed-dose amodiaquine-artesunate (AQAS) in Sierra Leone. Children aged 6-59 months diagnosed with malaria were recruited from two public clinics, randomized to receive AL or AQAS, and visited at home the day after completing treatment. Analyses were stratified by site, due to differences in participant characteristics and outcomes. Of the 784 randomized children, 680 (85.6%) were included in the final per-protocol analysis (340 AL, 340 AQAS). Definite adherence (self-reported adherence plus empty package) was higher for AL than AQAS at both sites (Site 1: 79.4% AL vs 63.4% AQAS, odds ratio [OR] 2.16, compared to probable adherence plus probable or definite non-adherence, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-3.49; p = 0.001; Site 2: 52.1% AL vs 37.5% AQAS, OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.00-2.33, p = 0.049). However, self-reported adherence (ignoring drug package inspection) was higher for both regimens at both sites and there was no strong evidence of variation by treatment (Site 1: 96.6% AL vs 95.9% AQAS, OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.39-3.63, p = 0.753; Site 2: 91.5% AL vs 96.4% AQAS, OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.15-1.07, p = 0.067). In Site 2, correct treatment (correct dose + timing + duration) was lower for AL than AQAS (75.8% vs 88.1%, OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.23-0.76, p = 0.004). In both sites, more caregivers in the AQAS arm reported adverse events (Site 1: 3.4% AL vs 15.7% AQAS, p < 0.001; Site 2: 15.2% AL vs 24.4% AQAS, p = 0.039). Self-reported adherence was high for both AL and AQAS, but varied by site. These results suggest that each regimen has potential disadvantages that might affect adherence; AL was less likely to be taken correctly at one site, but was better tolerated than AQAS at both sites. Measuring adherence to anti-malarials remains challenging, but important. Future research should focus on comparative studies of new drug regimens, and improving the methodology of measuring adherence. Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01967472. Retrospectively registered 18 October 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01967472.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 25%
Researcher 4 20%
Student > Master 4 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 20%
Social Sciences 3 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Other 5 25%
Unknown 3 15%

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 30 July 2018.
All research outputs
#2,339,005
of 13,304,005 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#668
of 3,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,162
of 270,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,304,005 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 270,637 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 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them