4.4 Article

Evaluation and application of potential schistosome-associated morbidity markers within large-scale mass chemotherapy programmes

期刊

PARASITOLOGY
卷 136, 期 13, 页码 1789-1799

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0031182009006350

关键词

Schistosomiasis; morbidity; diagnosis; control; Africa

资金

  1. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  2. Royal Society
  3. Medical Research Council
  4. CONTRAST project
  5. European Union [032203]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A primary objective of schistosomiasis control programmes is to achieve, and hence also demonstrate, a quantifiable reduction in schistosome-associated morbidity as a consequence of chemotherapeutic intervention. Inherent within such an objective, it is necessary to define and validate direct and indirect indicators of schistosome-related morbidity. However, to define and thereby document Such morbidity, and its reduction following treatment, may not be straightforward, particularly for intestinal schistosomiasis-induced morbidity, which is often not apparent in all but the most severe or chronic cases. within all 'Schistosomiasis Control Initiative' activities, across selected sub-Saharan African countries since 2002, a range of standard and novel potential morbidity markets have been monitored and evaluated. Parasitological intensity measures, combined with haemoglobin/anaemia Counts and Ultrasonography, proved valuable schistosomiasis-related morbidity indicators, being both logistically practical and informative. Additional measures tested, such as albumin excretion profiles, were promising, and are Subject to ongoing research, whilst some measures, such as distended stomach/umbilical circumference, anthropometrics and health questionnaires proved less reliable. These results serve to both illustrate the Success Of Current control activities in reducing schistosome-induced morbidity, and to highlight key tools and techniques for continued application within ongoing and future mass drug administration programmes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据