↓ Skip to main content

Assessing the impact of next-generation rapid diagnostic tests on Plasmodium falciparum malaria elimination strategies

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
30 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
117 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
221 Mendeley
Title
Assessing the impact of next-generation rapid diagnostic tests on Plasmodium falciparum malaria elimination strategies
Published in
Nature, December 2015
DOI 10.1038/nature16040
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hannah C. Slater, Amanda Ross, André Lin Ouédraogo, Lisa J. White, Chea Nguon, Patrick G.T. Walker, Pengby Ngor, Ricardo Aguas, Sheetal P. Silal, Arjen M. Dondorp, Paul La Barre, Robert Burton, Robert W. Sauerwein, Chris Drakeley, Thomas A. Smith, Teun Bousema, Azra C. Ghani

Abstract

Mass-screen-and-treat and targeted mass-drug-administration strategies are being considered as a means to interrupt transmission of Plasmodium falciparum malaria. However, the effectiveness of such strategies will depend on the extent to which current and future diagnostics are able to detect those individuals who are infectious to mosquitoes. We estimate the relationship between parasite density and onward infectivity using sensitive quantitative parasite diagnostics and mosquito feeding assays from Burkina Faso. We find that a diagnostic with a lower detection limit of 200 parasites per microlitre would detect 55% of the infectious reservoir (the combined infectivity to mosquitoes of the whole population weighted by how often each individual is bitten) whereas a test with a limit of 20 parasites per microlitre would detect 83% and 2 parasites per microlitre would detect 95% of the infectious reservoir. Using mathematical models, we show that increasing the diagnostic sensitivity from 200 parasites per microlitre (equivalent to microscopy or current rapid diagnostic tests) to 2 parasites per microlitre would increase the number of regions where transmission could be interrupted with a mass-screen-and-treat programme from an entomological inoculation rate below 1 to one of up to 4. The higher sensitivity diagnostic could reduce the number of treatment rounds required to interrupt transmission in areas of lower prevalence. We predict that mass-screen-and-treat with a highly sensitive diagnostic is less effective than mass drug administration owing to the prophylactic protection provided to uninfected individuals by the latter approach. In low-transmission settings such as those in Southeast Asia, we find that a diagnostic tool with a sensitivity of 20 parasites per microlitre may be sufficient for targeted mass drug administration because this diagnostic is predicted to identify a similar village population prevalence compared with that currently detected using polymerase chain reaction if treatment levels are high and screening is conducted during the dry season. Along with other factors, such as coverage, choice of drug, timing of the intervention, importation of infections, and seasonality, the sensitivity of the diagnostic can play a part in increasing the chance of interrupting transmission.This article has not been written or reviewed by Nature editors. Nature accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of the information provided.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 221 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 217 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 55 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 20%
Student > Master 32 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Other 12 5%
Other 24 11%
Unknown 41 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 5%
Engineering 9 4%
Other 45 20%
Unknown 63 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 03 May 2016.
All research outputs
#1,790,061
of 23,322,966 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#39,577
of 92,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,943
of 390,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#793
of 1,024 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,322,966 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 92,087 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 100.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 390,216 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,024 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.