MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214035567 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003849

Community control strategies for scabies: A cluster randomised noninferiority trial

2021· article· en· W3214035567 on OpenAlexaff
Myra Hardy, Josaia Samuela, Mike Kama, Meciusela Tuicakau, Lucia Romani, Margot Whitfeld, Christopher L. King, Gary J. Weil, Tibor Schuster, Anneke Grobler, Daniel Engelman, Leanne J. Robinson, John Kaldor, Andrew C. Steer

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatological diseases and infestations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMedical Research CouncilChildren’s Hospital of Wisconsin Research InstituteCase Western Reserve UniversityMurdoch Children's Research InstituteGovernment of the United KingdomBill and Melinda Gates FoundationUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsIvermectinMedicineInterquartile rangeLymphatic filariasisPermethrinScabiesDiethylcarbamazinePopulationMass drug administrationConfidence intervalAlbendazolePediatricsSurgeryInternal medicineEnvironmental healthFilariasisVeterinary medicineDermatologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Scabies is a neglected tropical disease hyperendemic to many low- and middle-income countries. Scabies can be successfully controlled using mass drug administration (MDA) using 2 doses of ivermectin-based treatment. If effective, a strategy of 1-dose ivermectin-based MDA would have substantial advantages for implementing MDA for scabies at large scale. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We did a cluster randomised, noninferiority, open-label, 3-group unblinded study comparing the effectiveness of control strategies on community prevalence of scabies at 12 months. All residents from 35 villages on 2 Fijian islands were eligible to participate. Villages were randomised 1:1:1 to 2-dose ivermectin-based MDA (IVM-2), 1-dose ivermectin-based MDA (IVM-1), or screen and treat with topical permethrin 5% for individuals with scabies and their household contacts (SAT). All groups also received diethylcarbamazine and albendazole for lymphatic filariasis control. For IVM-2 and IVM-1, oral ivermectin was dosed at 200 μg/kg and when contraindicated substituted with permethrin. We designated a noninferiority margin of 5%. We enrolled 3,812 participants at baseline (July to November 2017) from the 35 villages with median village size of 108 (range 18 to 298). Age and sex of participants were representative of the population with 51.6% male and median age of 25 years (interquartile range 10 to 47). We enrolled 3,898 at 12 months (July to November 2018). At baseline, scabies prevalence was similar in all groups: IVM-2: 11.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.5 to 16.0); IVM-1: 15.2% (95% CI 9.4 to 23.8); SAT: 13.6% (95% CI 7.9 to 22.4). At 12 months, scabies decreased substantially in all groups: IVM-2: 1.3% (95% CI 0.6 to 2.5); IVM-1: 2.7% (95% CI 1.1 to 6.5); SAT: 1.1% (95% CI 0.6 to 2.0). The risk difference in scabies prevalence at 12 months between the IVM-1 and IVM-2 groups was 1.2% (95% CI -0.2 to 2.7, p = 0.10). Limitations of the study included the method of scabies diagnosis by nonexperts, a lower baseline prevalence than anticipated, and the addition of diethylcarbamazine and albendazole to scabies treatment. CONCLUSIONS: All 3 strategies substantially reduced prevalence. One-dose was noninferior to 2-dose ivermectin-based MDA, as was a screen and treat approach, for community control of scabies. Further trials comparing these approaches in varied settings are warranted to inform global scabies control strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinitrials.gov NCT03177993 and ANZCTR N12617000738325.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS MedicineSame topicDermatological diseases and infestationsFrench-language works237,207