Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Artesunato más mefloquina versus mefloquina para el tratamiento del paludismo no complicado

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004531.pub2Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 19 octubre 2005see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:

  1. Grupo Cochrane de Enfermedades infecciosas

Clasificada:
  1. Actualización no planificada

    Review superseded

    Please refer to the Cochrane Special Collection: Sinclair 2014 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.SC000007/full

    Evaluada: 23 April 2019

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2019 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Hasifa Bukirwa

    Correspondencia a: Makerere University Medical School, Kampala, Uganda

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

  • Lois C Orton

    School of Population, Community and Behavioural Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

Contributions of authors

Hasifa Bukirwa extracted and analysed data, and drafted the review. Lois Orton extracted data, and edited and advised on the review.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, UK.

External sources

  • Department for International Development, UK.

Declarations of interest

None known.

Acknowledgements

The Protocol for this Cochrane Review was developed during the July 2002 Fellowship Programme organized by the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group through the Effective Health Care Alliance Programme (EHCAP) at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine.

This document is an output from a project funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) for the benefit of developing countries. The views expressed are not necessarily those of DFID.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2005 Oct 19

Artesunate plus mefloquine versus mefloquine for treating uncomplicated malaria

Review

Hasifa Bukirwa, Lois C Orton

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004531.pub2

2003 Oct 20

Artesunate‐mefloquine for treating uncomplicated malaria

Protocol

Hasifa Bukirwa, Lois C Orton

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004531

Differences between protocol and review

We changed the title of the review from 'Artesunate plus mefloquine for treating malaria' to the current title to reflect the review's inclusion criteria. We include only one primary outcome measure, treatment failure, following recent developments in knowledge around the accuracy of some malaria treatment outcomes. In line with changes in the guidance from the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group, we updated the methods for assessing blinding and changed the wording of "loss to follow up" to "inclusion of all randomized participants in the final analysis".

Notes

2012, Issue 4: Status: Historical question – no update intended: monotherapy no longer recommended

As of August 2008, this Cochrane Review is no longer being updated. The question addressed by this Cochrane Review is no longer considered to be relevant to decision making, as monotherapy has been replaced by Artemisinin‐based combination therapy, and is no longer used. For the most up‐to‐date information regarding malaria treatments, please see: Sinclair D, Zani B, Donegan S, Olliaro P, Garner P. Artemisinin‐based combination therapy for treating uncomplicated malaria. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD007483. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007483.pub2

The review status is  a pilot system used by the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group to help the reader understand whether the review is concerns a current question, and is up to date.

We report on:

1. The question the review addresses. Is it a:

  • Historical question, where the intervention or policy has been superseded by new medical developments (such as a new drug); or a

  • Current question, which is still relevant to current policy or practice.

2. Whether the review is up to date. Is the review:

  • Up to date;

  • Update pending; or

  • No update intended.

We then provide comment on the review status, to help explain the categories selected.