↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy and safety of intermittent preventive treatment for malaria in schoolchildren: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, November 2015
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Efficacy and safety of intermittent preventive treatment for malaria in schoolchildren: a systematic review
Published in
Malaria Journal, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12936-015-0988-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Junior R. Matangila, Patrick Mitashi, Raquel A. Inocêncio da Luz, Pascal T. Lutumba, Jean-Pierre Van Geertruyden

Abstract

Intermittent preventive treatment (IPT) is a proven malaria control strategy in infants and pregnancy. School-aged children represent 26 % of the African population, and an increasing percentage of them are scholarized. Malaria is causing 50 % of deaths in this age group and malaria control efforts may shift the malaria burden to older age groups. Schools have been suggested as a platform for health interventions delivery (deworming, iron-folic acid, nutrients supplementation, (boost-)immunization) and as a possible delivery system for IPT in schoolchildren (IPTsc). However, the current evidence on the efficacy and safety of IPTsc is limited and the optimal therapeutic regimen remains controversial. A systematic search for studies reporting efficacy and safety of IPT in schoolchildren was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials and WHO/ICTRP database, and abstracts from congresses with the following key words: intermittent, preventive treatment AND malaria OR Plasmodium falciparum AND schoolchildren NOT infant NOT pregnancy. Five studies were identified. Most IPTsc regimes demonstrated substantial protection against malaria parasitaemia, with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) given monthly having the highest protective effect (PE) (94 %; 95 % CI 93-96). Contrarily, SP did not provide any PE against parasitaemia. However, no IPT regimen provided a PE above 50 % in regard to anaemia, and highest protection was provided by SP+ amodiaquine (AQ) given four-monthly (50 %; 95 % CI 41-53). The best protection against clinical malaria was observed in children monthly treated with DP (97 %; 95 % CI 87-98). However, there was no protection when the drug was given three-monthly. No severe adverse events were associated with the drugs used for IPTsc. IPTsc may reduce the malaria-related burden in schoolchildren. However, more studies assessing efficacy of IPT in particular against malaria-related anaemia and clinical malaria in schoolchildren must be conducted.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 1%
Unknown 88 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 28%
Researcher 16 18%
Other 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 11 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 12%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 3%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 13 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 12 December 2017.
All research outputs
#398,816
of 12,287,089 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#54
of 3,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,943
of 320,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#4
of 173 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,287,089 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 3,589 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 320,982 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 173 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.