Summary of findings: DHA‐P vs alternative ACTs: Post treatment prophylaxis As assessed by: Recurrent parasitaemia between day 28 and 42
Summary of findings: DHA‐P may leads to lower post‐treatment prophylaxis As assessed by: Recurrent parasitaemia… compared with alternative ACTs (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary of findings: DHA‐P vs alternative ACTs Post‐treatment prophylaxis As assessed by: Recurrent parasitaemia between day 28 and 42 · Adults and children with uncomplicated P. vivax malaria Summary of findings: DHA‐P may leads to lower post‐treatment prophylaxis As assessed by: Recurrent parasitaemia… compared with alternative ACTs (low certainty). Artemisinin‐based combination therapy for treating uncomplicated Plasmodium vivax malaria (2013) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.21 [0.1, 0.46] | 2 studies · 179 participants | Low |
Summary of findings: DHA‐P vs alternative ACTs Post treatment prophylaxis As assessed by: Recurrent parasitaemia between day 28 and 42 · Adults and children with uncomplicated P. vivax malaria The review found no eligible studies for this question. Artemisinin‐based combination therapy for treating uncomplicated Plasmodium vivax malaria (2011) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD008492.PUB2, superseded | no estimate extracted | Not reported | No studies found |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artemisinin‐based combination therapy for treating uncomplicated Plasmodium vivax malaria 2013 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.