Use of qualitative research in World Health Organisation guidelines: a document analysis.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines depend on effect estimates, usually derived from randomised controlled trials, to inform their decisions. Qualitative research evidence may improve decisions made but where in the process and the methods to do this have not been so clearly established. We sought to describe and appraise how qualitative research has been used to inform World Heath Organization guidance since 2020. METHODS: We conducted a document analysis of WHO guidelines from 2020 to 2022. We purposely sampled guidelines on the topics of maternal and newborn health (MANH) and infectious diseases, as most of the qualitative synthesis to date has been conducted on these topics, likely representing the 'best case' scenario. We searched the in-built repository feature of the WHO website and used standardised search terms to identify qualitative reporting. Using deductive frameworks, we described how qualitative evidence was used to inform guidelines and appraised the standards of this use. RESULTS: Of the 29 guidelines, over half used qualitative research to help guide decisions (18/29). A total of 8 of these used qualitative research to inform the guideline scope, all 18 to inform recommendations, and 1 to inform implementation considerations. All guidelines drew on qualitative evidence syntheses (QES), and five further supplemented this with primary qualitative research. Qualitative findings reported in guidelines were typically descriptive, identifying people's perception of the benefits and harms of interventions or logistical barriers and facilitators to programme success. No guideline provided transparent reporting of how qualitative research was interpreted and weighed used alongside other evidence when informing decisions, and only one guideline reported the inclusion of qualitative methods experts on the panel. Only a few guidelines contextualised their recommendations by indicating which populations and settings qualitative findings could be applied. CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative research frequently informed WHO guideline decisions particularly in the field of MANH. However, the process often lacked transparency. We identified unmet potential in informing implementation considerations and contextualisation of the recommendations. Use in these areas needs further methods development.

Anomalies in the review process and interpretation of the evidence in the NICE guideline for chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis.

Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is a disabling long-term condition of unknown cause. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published a guideline in 2021 that highlighted the seriousness of the condition, but also recommended that graded exercise therapy (GET) should not be used and cognitive-behavioural therapy should only be used to manage symptoms and reduce distress, not to aid recovery. This U-turn in recommendations from the previous 2007 guideline is controversial.We suggest that the controversy stems from anomalies in both processing and interpretation of the evidence by the NICE committee. The committee: (1) created a new definition of CFS/ME, which 'downgraded' the certainty of trial evidence; (2) omitted data from standard trial end points used to assess efficacy; (3) discounted trial data when assessing treatment harm in favour of lower quality surveys and qualitative studies; (4) minimised the importance of fatigue as an outcome; (5) did not use accepted practices to synthesise trial evidence adequately using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations trial evidence); (6) interpreted GET as mandating fixed increments of change when trials defined it as collaborative, negotiated and symptom dependent; (7) deviated from NICE recommendations of rehabilitation for related conditions, such as chronic primary pain and (8) recommended an energy management approach in the absence of supportive research evidence.We conclude that the dissonance between this and the previous guideline was the result of deviating from usual scientific standards of the NICE process. The consequences of this are that patients may be denied helpful treatments and therefore risk persistent ill health and disability.

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research.

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0.

Improving the reproducibility of biomedical research is a major challenge. Transparent and accurate reporting is vital to this process; it allows readers to assess the reliability of the findings and repeat or build upon the work of other researchers. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) were developed in 2010 to help authors and journals identify the minimum information necessary to report in publications describing in vivo experiments. Despite widespread endorsement by the scientific community, the impact of ARRIVE on the transparency of reporting in animal research publications has been limited. We have revised the ARRIVE guidelines to update them and facilitate their use in practice. The revised guidelines are published alongside this paper. This explanation and elaboration document was developed as part of the revision. It provides further information about each of the 21 items in ARRIVE 2.0, including the rationale and supporting evidence for their inclusion in the guidelines, elaboration of details to report, and examples of good reporting from the published literature. This document also covers advice and best practice in the design and conduct of animal studies to support researchers in improving standards from the start of the experimental design process through to publication.

Plasmapheresis to remove amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles for treating the post-COVID-19 condition.

BACKGROUND: The post-COVID-19 condition (PCC) consists of a wide array of symptoms including fatigue and impaired daily living. People seek a wide variety of approaches to help them recover. A new belief, arising from a few laboratory studies, is that 'microclots' cause the symptoms of PCC. This belief has been extended outside these studies, suggesting that to recover people need plasmapheresis (an expensive process where blood is filtered outside the body). We appraised the laboratory studies, and it was clear that the term 'microclots' is incorrect to describe the phenomenon being described. The particles are amyloid and include fibrin(ogen); amyloid is not a part of a thrombus which is a mix of fibrin mesh and platelets. Initial acute COVID-19 infection is associated with clotting abnormalities; this review concerns amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in PCC only. We have reported here our appraisal of laboratory studies investigating the presence of amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in PCC, and of evidence that plasmapheresis may be an effective therapy to remove amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles for treating PCC. OBJECTIVES: Laboratory studies review To summarize and appraise the research reports on amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles related to PCC. Randomized controlled trials review To assess the evidence of the safety and efficacy of plasmapheresis to remove amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in individuals with PCC from randomized controlled trials. SEARCH METHODS: Laboratory studies review We searched for all relevant laboratory studies up to 27 October 2022 using a comprehensive search strategy which included the search terms 'COVID', 'amyloid', 'fibrin', 'fibrinogen'. Randomized controlled trials review We searched the following databases on 21 October 2022: Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register; MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase (Ovid); and BIOSIS Previews (Web of Science). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov for trials in progress. SELECTION CRITERIA: Laboratory studies review Laboratory studies that investigate the presence of amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in plasma samples from patients with PCC were eligible. This included studies with or without controls. Randomized controlled trials review Studies were eligible if they were of randomized controlled design and investigated the effectiveness or safety of plasmapheresis for removing amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles for treating PCC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors applied study inclusion criteria to identify eligible studies and extracted data. Laboratory studies review We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using pre-developed methods for laboratory studies. We planned to perform synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) as described in our protocol. Randomized controlled trials review We planned that if we identified any eligible studies, we would assess risk of bias and report results with 95% confidence intervals. The primary outcome was recovery, measured using the Post-COVID-19 Functional Status Scale (absence of symptoms related to the illness, ability to do usual daily activities, and a return to a previous state of health and mind). MAIN RESULTS: Laboratory studies review We identified five laboratory studies. Amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles were identified in participants across all studies, including those with PCC, healthy individuals, and those with diabetes. The results of three studies were based on visual images of amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles, which did not quantify the amount or size of the particles identified. Formal risk of bias assessment showed concerns in how the studies were conducted and reported. This means the results were insufficient to support the belief that amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles are associated with PCC, or to determine whether there is a difference in the amount or size of amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in the plasma of people with PCC compared to healthy controls. Randomized controlled trials review We identified no trials meeting our inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of reliable research showing that amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles contribute to the pathophysiology of PCC, there is no rationale for plasmapheresis to remove amyloid fibrin(ogen) particles in PCC. Plasmapheresis for this indication should not be used outside the context of a well-conducted randomized controlled trial.

Chronic fatigue syndromes: real illnesses that people can recover from.

The 'Oslo Chronic Fatigue Consortium' consists of researchers and clinicians who question the current narrative that chronic fatigue syndromes, including post-covid conditions, are incurable diseases. Instead, we propose an alternative view, based on research, which offers more hope to patients. Whilst we regard the symptoms of these conditions as real, we propose that they are more likely to reflect the brain's response to a range of biological, psychological, and social factors, rather than a specific disease process. Possible causes include persistent activation of the neurobiological stress response, accompanied by associated changes in immunological, hormonal, cognitive and behavioural domains. We further propose that the symptoms are more likely to persist if they are perceived as threatening, and all activities that are perceived to worsen them are avoided. We also question the idea that the best way to cope with the illness is by prolonged rest, social isolation, and sensory deprivation.Instead, we propose that recovery is often possible if patients are helped to adopt a less threatening understanding of their symptoms and are supported in a gradual return to normal activities. Finally, we call for a much more open and constructive dialogue about these conditions. This dialogue should include a wider range of views, including those of patients who have recovered from them.

Community views on mass drug administration for filariasis: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends mass drug administration (MDA), giving a drug at regular intervals to a whole population, as part of the strategy for several disease control programmes in low- and middle-income countries. MDA is currently WHO policy for areas endemic with lymphatic filariasis, which is a parasitic disease that can result in swollen limbs and disability. The success depends on communities adhering to the drugs given, and this will be influenced by the perception of the drug, the programme, and those delivering it.  OBJECTIVES: To synthesize qualitative research evidence about community experience with, and understanding and perception of, MDA programmes for lymphatic filariasis. To explore whether programme design and delivery influence the community experience identified in the analysis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and seven other databases up to 8 April 2021, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: This review synthesized qualitative research and mixed-methods studies when it was possible to extract qualitative data. Eligible studies explored community experiences, perceptions, or attitudes towards MDA programmes for lymphatic filariasis in any country, conducted between 2000 and 2019.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on study design including: authors, aims, participants, methods, and qualitative data collection methods. We also described programme delivery factors including: country, urban or rural setting, endemicity, drug regimen, rounds of MDA received at the time of the study, who delivered the drugs, how the drugs were delivered, use of health education, and sensitization and adherence monitoring. We conducted a thematic analysis and developed codes inductively using ATLAS.ti software. We examined codes for underlying ideas, connections, and interpretations and, from this, generated analytical themes. We assessed the confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach, and produced a conceptual model to display our findings.  MAIN RESULTS: From 902 results identified in the search, 29 studies met our inclusion criteria. The studies covered a broad range of countries in Africa, South-East Asia, and South America, and explored the views and experiences of community members and community drug distributors in low-income countries endemic for lymphatic filariasis. Four themes emerged. People weigh up benefits and harms before participating. People understand the potential benefits in terms of relief of suffering, stigma, and avoiding costs (high confidence); however, these theoretical benefits do not always mesh with their experiences (high confidence). In particular, adverse effects are frightening and unwelcome (high confidence); and these effects are amplified through rumour and social media (moderate confidence). Many people are suspicious of MDA programmes. When people lack a scientific explanation for the programme and their experiences of it, they often develop social explanations instead. These are largely shaped on the historical backdrop and level of trust people have in relevant authority figures (high confidence), although some have unwavering faith in their government and, by extension, the programme (moderate confidence). Programmes expect compliance, and this can become coercive and blaming. Health workers and community members stigmatize non-compliance, which can become coercive (moderate confidence), so communities may appear to comply publicly, but privately reject treatment (moderate confidence). Community distributors are often not respected or valued. They have little authority (moderate confidence), and the behaviour of some distributors damages the MDA programme's reputation (high confidence). Communities want information about programmes to help make decisions about participation, but drug distributors are not sufficiently informed, or skilled in this communication (high confidence). We intended to assess whether programme designs influenced communities' perceptions of the programme and decision to adhere but were unable to do so as few studies adequately reported the design and implementation of the local programme. We have moderate to high confidence in the evidence contributing to the review themes and subthemes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Adherence with MDA for filariasis is influenced by individual direct experience of benefit and harm; social influences in the community; political influences and their relationship to government; and historical influences. Fear of adverse effects was frequently described and this appears to be particularly important for communities. When views were negative, we were surprised by the strength of feeling expressed. Enthusiasm for these schemes as a strategy in global policy needs debate in the light of these findings.

Plague Transmission from Corpses and Carcasses.

Knowing whether human corpses can transmit plague will inform policies for handling the bodies of those who have died of the disease. We analyzed the literature to evaluate risk for transmission of Yersinia pestis, the causative agent of plague, from human corpses and animal carcasses. Because we could not find direct evidence of transmission, we described a transmission pathway and assessed the potential for transmission at each step. We examined 3 potential sources of infection: body fluids of living plague patients, infected corpses and carcasses, and body fluids of infected corpses. We concluded that pneumonic plague can be transmitted by intensive handling of the corpse or carcass, presumably through the inhalation of respiratory droplets, and that bubonic plague can be transmitted by blood-to-blood contact with the body fluids of a corpse or carcass. These findings should inform precautions taken by those handling the bodies of persons or animals that died of plague.

House modifications for preventing malaria.

BACKGROUND: Despite being preventable, malaria remains an important public health problem. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that overall progress in malaria control has plateaued for the first time since the turn of the century. Researchers and policymakers are therefore exploring alternative and supplementary malaria vector control tools. Research in 1900 indicated that modification of houses may be effective in reducing malaria: this is now being revisited, with new research now examining blocking house mosquito entry points or modifying house construction materials to reduce exposure of inhabitants to infectious bites. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of house modifications on malaria disease and transmission. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase (OVID); Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CAB) Abstracts (Web of Science); and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS), up to 1 November 2019. We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en/), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/) to identify ongoing trials up to the same date. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials, including cluster-randomized controlled trials (cRCTs), cross-over studies, and stepped-wedge designs were eligible, as were quasi-experimental trials, including controlled before-and-after studies, controlled interrupted time series, and non-randomized cross-over studies. We only considered studies reporting epidemiological outcomes (malaria case incidence, malaria infection incidence or parasite prevalence). We also summarised qualitative studies conducted alongside included studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors selected eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We used risk ratios (RR) to compare the effect of the intervention with the control for dichotomous data. For continuous data, we presented the mean difference; and for count and rate data, we used rate ratios. We presented all results with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Six cRCTs met our inclusion criteria, all conducted in sub-Saharan Africa; three randomized by household, two by village, and one at the community level. All trials assessed screening of windows, doors, eaves, ceilings or any combination of these; this was either alone, or in combination with eave closure, roof modification or eave tube installation (a "lure and kill" device that reduces mosquito entry whilst maintaining some airflow). In two trials, the interventions were insecticide-based. In five trials, the researchers implemented the interventions. The community implemented the interventions in the sixth trial. At the time of writing the review, two of the six trials had published results, both of which compared screened houses (without insecticide) to unscreened houses. One trial in Ethiopia assessed screening of windows and doors. Another trial in the Gambia assessed full screening (screening of eaves, doors and windows), as well as screening of ceilings only. Screening may reduce clinical malaria incidence caused by Plasmodium falciparum (rate ratio 0.38, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.82; 1 trial, 184 participants, 219.3 person-years; low-certainty evidence; Ethiopian study). For malaria parasite prevalence, the point estimate, derived from The Gambia study, was smaller (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.17; 713 participants, 1 trial; low-certainty evidence), and showed an effect on anaemia (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42, 0.89; 705 participants; 1 trial, moderate-certainty evidence). Screening may reduce the entomological inoculation rate (EIR): both trials showed lower estimates in the intervention arm. In the Gambian trial, there was a mean difference in EIR between the control houses and treatment houses ranging from 0.45 to 1.50 (CIs ranged from -0.46 to 2.41; low-certainty evidence), depending on the study year and treatment arm. The Ethiopian trial reported a mean difference in EIR of 4.57, favouring screening (95% CI 3.81 to 5.33; low-certainty evidence). Pooled analysis of the trials showed that individuals living in fully screened houses were slightly less likely to sleep under a bed net (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.09; 2 trials, 203 participants). In one trial, bed net usage was also lower in individuals living in houses with screened ceilings (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.95; 1 trial, 135 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the two trials published to date, there is some evidence that screening may reduce malaria transmission and malaria infection in people living in the house. The four trials awaiting publication are likely to enrich the current evidence base, and we will add these to this review when they become available.

Ventilation Techniques and Risk for Transmission of Coronavirus Disease, Including COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Multiple Streams of Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation is used to treat respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PURPOSE: To review multiple streams of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of ventilation techniques for coronavirus infections, including that causing COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: 21 standard, World Health Organization-specific and COVID-19-specific databases, without language restrictions, until 1 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of any design and language comparing different oxygenation approaches in patients with coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Animal, mechanistic, laboratory, and preclinical evidence was gathered regarding aerosol dispersion of coronavirus. Studies evaluating risk for virus transmission to health care workers from aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent and duplicate screening, data abstraction, and risk-of-bias assessment (GRADE for certainty of evidence and AMSTAR 2 for included systematic reviews). DATA SYNTHESIS: 123 studies were eligible (45 on COVID-19, 70 on SARS, 8 on MERS), but only 5 studies (1 on COVID-19, 3 on SARS, 1 on MERS) adjusted for important confounders. A study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 reported slightly higher mortality with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) than with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), but 2 opposing studies, 1 in patients with MERS and 1 in patients with SARS, suggest a reduction in mortality with NIV (very-low-certainty evidence). Two studies in patients with SARS report a reduction in mortality with NIV compared with no mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence). Two systematic reviews suggest a large reduction in mortality with NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Other included studies suggest increased odds of transmission from AGPs. LIMITATION: Direct studies in COVID-19 are limited and poorly reported. CONCLUSION: Indirect and low-certainty evidence suggests that use of NIV, similar to IMV, probably reduces mortality but may increase the risk for transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: World Health Organization. (PROSPERO: CRD42020178187).

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research.

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the 'ARRIVE Essential 10,' which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the 'Recommended Set,' which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

Prevalence and outcome of bloodstream infections due to third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of bacterial bloodstream infections (BSIs) in sub-Saharan Africa (sSA) is high and antimicrobial resistance is likely to increase mortality from these infections. Third-generation cephalosporin-resistant (3GC-R) Enterobacteriaceae are of particular concern, given the widespread reliance on ceftriaxone for management of sepsis in Africa. OBJECTIVES: Reviewing studies from sSA, we aimed to describe the prevalence of 3GC resistance in Escherichia coli, Klebsiella and Salmonella BSIs and the in-hospital mortality from 3GC-R BSIs. METHODS: We systematically reviewed studies reporting 3GC susceptibility testing of E. coli, Klebsiella and Salmonella BSI. We searched PubMed and Scopus from January 1990 to September 2019 for primary data reporting 3GC susceptibility testing of Enterobacteriaceae associated with BSI in sSA and studies reporting mortality from 3GC-R BSI. 3GC-R was defined as phenotypic resistance to ceftriaxone, cefotaxime or ceftazidime. Outcomes were reported as median prevalence of 3GC resistance for each pathogen. RESULTS: We identified 40 articles, including 7 reporting mortality. Median prevalence of 3GC resistance in E. coli was 18.4% (IQR 10.5 to 35.2) from 20 studies and in Klebsiella spp. was 54.4% (IQR 24.3 to 81.2) from 28 studies. Amongst non-typhoidal salmonellae, 3GC resistance was 1.9% (IQR 0 to 6.1) from 12 studies. A pooled mortality estimate was prohibited by heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Levels of 3GC resistance amongst bloodstream Enterobacteriaceae in sSA are high, yet the mortality burden is unknown. The lack of clinical outcome data from drug-resistant infections in Africa represents a major knowledge gap and future work must link laboratory surveillance to clinical data.

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research.

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research.

Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

House modifications for preventing malaria.

BACKGROUND: Despite being preventable, malaria remains an important public health problem. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that overall progress in malaria control has plateaued for the first time since the turn of the century. Researchers and policymakers are therefore exploring alternative and supplementary malaria vector control tools. Research in 1900 indicated that modification of houses may be effective in reducing malaria: this is now being revisited, with new research now examining blocking house mosquito entry points or modifying house construction materials to reduce exposure of inhabitants to infectious bites. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of house modifications on malaria disease and transmission. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase (OVID); Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CAB) Abstracts (Web of Science); and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS), up to 1 November 2019. We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en/), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/) to identify ongoing trials up to the same date. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials, including cluster-randomized controlled trials (cRCTs), cross-over studies, and stepped-wedge designs were eligible, as were quasi-experimental trials, including controlled before-and-after studies, controlled interrupted time series, and non-randomized cross-over studies. We only considered studies reporting epidemiological outcomes (malaria case incidence, malaria infection incidence or parasite prevalence). We also summarised qualitative studies conducted alongside included studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors selected eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We used risk ratios (RR) to compare the effect of the intervention with the control for dichotomous data. For continuous data, we presented the mean difference; and for count and rate data, we used rate ratios. We presented all results with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Six cRCTs met our inclusion criteria, all conducted in sub-Saharan Africa; three randomized by household, two by village, and one at the community level. All trials assessed screening of windows, doors, eaves, ceilings or any combination of these; this was either alone, or in combination with eave closure, roof modification or eave tube installation (a "lure and kill" device that reduces mosquito entry whilst maintaining some airflow). In two trials, the interventions were insecticide-based. In five trials, the researchers implemented the interventions. The community implemented the interventions in the sixth trial. At the time of writing the review, two of the six trials had published results, both of which compared screened houses (without insecticide) to unscreened houses. One trial in Ethiopia assessed screening of windows and doors. Another trial in the Gambia assessed full screening (screening of eaves, doors and windows), as well as screening of ceilings only. Screening may reduce clinical malaria incidence caused by Plasmodium falciparum (rate ratio 0.38, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.82; 1 trial, 184 participants, 219.3 person-years; low-certainty evidence; Ethiopian study). For malaria parasite prevalence, the point estimate, derived from The Gambia study, was smaller (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.17; 713 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence), and showed an effect on anaemia (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42, 0.89; 705 participants; 1 trial, moderate-certainty evidence). Screening may reduce the entomological inoculation rate (EIR): both trials showed lower estimates in the intervention arm. In the Gambian trial, there was a mean difference in EIR between the control houses and treatment houses ranging from 0.45 to 1.50 (CIs ranged from -0.46 to 2.41; low-certainty evidence), depending on the study year and treatment arm. The Ethiopian trial reported a mean difference in EIR of 4.57, favouring screening (95% CI 3.81 to 5.33; low-certainty evidence). Pooled analysis of the trials showed that individuals living in fully screened houses were slightly less likely to sleep under a bed net (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.09; 2 trials, 203 participants). In one trial, bed net usage was also lower in individuals living in houses with screened ceilings (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.95; 1 trial, 135 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the two trials published to date, there is some evidence that screening may reduce malaria transmission and malaria infection in people living in the house. The four trials awaiting publication are likely to enrich the current evidence base, and we will add these to this review when they become available.

Indoor residual spraying for preventing malaria in communities using insecticide-treated nets.

BACKGROUND: Insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) and indoor residual spraying (IRS) are used to control malaria vectors. Both strategies use insecticides to kill mosquitoes that bite and rest indoors. For ITNs, the World Health Organization (WHO) only recommended pyrethroids until 2018, but mosquito vectors are becoming resistant to this insecticide. For IRS, a range of insecticides are recommended. Adding IRS to ITNs may improve control, simply because two interventions may be better than one; it may improve malaria control where ITNs are failing due to pyrethroid resistance; and it may slow the emergence and spread of pyrethroid resistance. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the effect on malaria of additionally implementing IRS, using non-pyrethroid-like or pyrethroid-like insecticides, in communities currently using ITNs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; Embase; LILACS; the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the ISRCTN registry up to 18 March 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cluster-randomized controlled trials (cRCTs), interrupted time series (ITS), or controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) comparing IRS plus ITNs with ITNs alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility, analyzed risk of bias, and extracted data. We used risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We stratified by type of insecticide: 'non-pyrethroid-like', as this could improve malaria control better than adding IRS insecticides that have the same way of working as the insecticide on ITNs ('pyrethroid-like'). We used subgroup analysis of ITN usage in the trials to explore heterogeneity. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Six cRCTs (eight comparisons) met our inclusion criteria conducted since 2008 in sub-Saharan Africa. Malaria transmission in all sites was from mosquitoes belonging to the Anopheles gambiae s.l. complex species; two trials in Benin and Tanzania also reported the vector Anopheles funestus. Three trials used insecticide with targets different to pyrethroids (two used bendiocarb and one used pirimiphos-methyl); two trials used dichloro-diphenyl-trichlorethane (DDT), an insecticide with the same target as pyrethroids; and one trial used both types of insecticide (pyrethroid deltamethrin in the first year, switching to bendiocarb for the second-year). ITN usage was greater than 50% in three trials, and less than 50% in the remainder.Indoor residual spraying using 'non-pyrethroid-like' insecticides Adding IRS with a non-pyrethroid-like insecticide had mixed results. Overall, we do not know if the addition of IRS impacted on malaria incidence (rate ratio 0.93, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.86; 2 cRCTs, 566 child-years; very low-certainty evidence); it may have reduced malaria parasite prevalence (0.67, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.28; 5 comparisons from 4 cRCTs, 10,440 participants; low-certainty evidence); and it may have reduced the prevalence of anaemia (RR CI 0.46, 95% 0.18 to 1.20; 3 comparisons from 2 cRCTs, 2026 participants; low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported the impact on EIR, with variable results; overall, we do not know if IRS had any effect on the EIR in communities using ITNs (very low-certainty evidence). Trials also reported the adult mosquito density and the sporozoite rate, but we could not summarize or pool these entomological outcomes due to unreported data. ITN usage did not explain the variation in malaria outcomes between different studies. One trial reported no effect on malaria incidence or parasite prevalence in the first year, when the insecticide used for IRS had the same target as pyrethroids, but showed an effect on both outcomes in the second year, when the insecticide was replaced by one with a different target.Two trials measured the prevalence of pyrethroid resistance before and after IRS being introduced: no difference was detected, but these data are limited.Indoor residual spraying using 'pyrethroid-like' insecticidesAdding IRS using a pyrethroid-like insecticide did not appear to markedly alter malaria incidence (rate ratio 1.07, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.43; 2 cRCTs, 15,717 child-years; moderate-certainty evidence), parasite prevalence (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.44; 3 cRCTs, 10,820 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), or anaemia prevalence (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.40; 1 cRCT, 4186 participants; low-certainty evidence). Data on the entomological inoculation rate (EIR) were limited, and therefore we do not know if IRS had any effect on the EIR in communities using ITNs (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Four trials have evaluated adding IRS using 'non-pyrethroid-like' insecticides in communities using ITNs. Some of these trials showed effects, and others did not. Three trials have evaluated adding IRS using 'pyrethroid-like' insecticides in communities using ITNs, and these studies did not detect an additional effect of the IRS. Given the wide geographical variety of malaria endemicities, transmission patterns, and insecticide resistance, we need to be cautious with inferences to policy from the limited number of trials conducted to date, and to develop relevant further research to inform decisions.

MVA85A vaccine to enhance BCG for preventing tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis causes more deaths than any other infectious disease globally. Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) is the only available vaccine, but protection is incomplete and variable. The modified Vaccinia Ankara virus expressing antigen 85A (MVA85A) is a viral vector vaccine produced to prevent tuberculosis. OBJECTIVES: To assess and summarize the effects of the MVA85A vaccine boosting BCG in humans. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase (Ovid); and four other databases. We searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. All searches were run up to 10 May 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We evaluated randomized controlled trials of MVA85A vaccine given with BCG in people regardless of age or HIV status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of trials, and extracted and analyzed data. The primary outcome was active tuberculosis disease. We summarized dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RR) and risk differences (RD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, we combined data in meta-analyses. Where meta-analysis was inappropriate, we summarized results narratively. MAIN RESULTS: The search identified six studies relating to four Phase 2 randomized controlled trials enrolling 3838 participants. Funding was by government bodies, charities, and philanthropic donors. Five studies included infants, one of them infants born to HIV-positive mothers. One study included adults living with HIV. All trials included authors from Oxford University who led the laboratory development of the vaccine. Participants received intradermal MVA85A after BCG in some studies, and before selective deferred BCG in HIV-exposed infants.The largest trial in 2797 African children was well conducted with low risk of bias for most parameters. Risk of bias was uncertain for selective reporting because there were no precise case definition endpoints for active tuberculosis published prior to the trial analysis.MVA85A added to BCG compared to BCG alone probably has no effect on the risk of developing microbiologically confirmed tuberculosis (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.62; 3439 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence), or the risk of starting on tuberculosis treatment (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.33; 3687 participants, 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). MVA85A probably has no effect on the risk of developing latent tuberculosis (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.21; 3831 participants, 4 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Vaccinating people with MVA85A in addition to BCG did not cause life-threatening serious adverse effects (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.00; 3692 participants, 3 trials; high-certainty evidence). Vaccination with MVA85A is probably associated with an increased risk of local skin adverse effects (3187 participants, 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence), but not systemic adverse effect related to vaccination (144 participants, 1 trial; low-certainty evidence). This safety profile is consistent with Phase 1 studies which outlined a transient, superficial reaction local to the injection site and mild short-lived symptoms such as malaise and fever. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: MVA85A delivered by intradermal injection in addition to BCG is safe but not effective in reducing the risk of developing tuberculosis.

Albendazole alone or in combination with microfilaricidal drugs for lymphatic filariasis.

BACKGROUND: The Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis recommends mass treatment of albendazole co-administered with the microfilaricidal (antifilarial) drugs diethylcarbamazine (DEC) or ivermectin; and recommends albendazole alone in areas where loiasis is endemic. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of albendazole alone, and the effects of adding albendazole to DEC or ivermectin, in people and communities with lymphatic filariasis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (OVID), LILACS (BIREME), and reference lists of included trials. We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify ongoing trials. We performed all searches up to 15 January 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs that compared albendazole to placebo or no placebo, or compared albendazole combined with a microfilaricidal drug to a microfilaricidal drug alone, given to people known to have lymphatic filariasis or communities where lymphatic filariasis was known to be endemic. We sought data on measures of transmission potential (microfilariae (mf) prevalence and density); markers of adult worm infection (antigenaemia prevalence and density, and adult worm prevalence detected by ultrasound); and data on clinical disease and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed the trials, evaluated the risks of bias, and extracted data. The main analysis examined albendazole overall, whether given alone or added to a microfilaricidal drug. We used data collected from all randomized individuals at time of longest follow-up (up to 12 months) for meta-analysis of outcomes. We evaluated mf density data up to six months and at 12 months follow-up to ensure that we did not miss any subtle temporal effects. We conducted additional analyses for different follow-up periods and whether trials reported on individuals known to be infected or both infected and uninfected. We analysed dichotomous data using the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We could not meta-analyse data on parasite density outcomes and we summarized them in tables. Where data were missing, we contacted trial authors. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 trials (12 individually-randomized and one small cluster-randomized trial) with 8713 participants in total. No trials evaluated population-level effects of albendazole in mass drug administration programmes. Seven trials enrolled people with a variety of inclusion criteria related to filarial infection, and six trials enrolled individuals from endemic areas. Outcomes were reported as end or change values. Mf and antigen density data were reported using the geometric mean, log mean and arithmetic mean, and reductions in density were variously calculated. Two trials discounted any increases in mf density in individuals at follow-up by setting any density increase to zero.For mf prevalence over two weeks to 12 months, albendazole alone or added to another microfilaricidal drug makes little or no difference (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07; 5027 participants, 12 trials, high-certainty evidence). For mf density there is no trend, with some trials reporting a greater reduction in mf density with albendazole and others a greater reduction with the control group. For mf density up to six months and at 12 months, we do not know if albendazole has an effect (one to six months: 1216 participants, 10 trials, very low-certainty evidence; at 12 months: 1052 participants, 9 trials, very low-certainty evidence).For antigenaemia prevalence between six to 12 months, albendazole alone or added to another microfilaricidal drug makes little or no difference (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.12; 3774 participants, 7 trials, high-certainty evidence). For antigen density over six to 12 months, the trend shows little or no effect of albendazole; but we do not know if albendazole has an effect on antigen density (1374 participants, 5 trials, very low-certainty evidence). For adult worm prevalence detected by ultrasound at 12 months, albendazole added to a microfilaricidal drug may make little or no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.86; 165 participants, 3 trials, low-certainty evidence).For people reporting adverse events, albendazole makes little or no difference (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.13; 2894 participants, 6 trials, high-certainty evidence).We also provide meta-analyses and GRADE tables by drug, as operationally this may be of interest: for albendazole versus placebo (4 trials, 1870 participants); for albendazole with DEC compared to DEC alone (8 trials, 3405 participants); and albendazole with ivermectin compared to ivermectin alone (4 trials, 3438 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is good evidence that albendazole makes little difference to clearing microfilaraemia or adult filarial worms in the 12 months post-treatment. This finding is consistent in trials evaluating albendazole alone, or added to DEC or ivermectin. Trials reporting mf density included small numbers of participants, calculated density data variously, and gave inconsistent results.The review raises questions over whether albendazole has any important contribution to the elimination of lymphatic filariasis. To inform policy for areas with loiasis where only albendazole can be used, it may be worth conducting placebo-controlled trials of albendazole alone.

Public health deworming programmes for soil-transmitted helminths in children living in endemic areas.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends treating all school children at regular intervals with deworming drugs in areas where helminth infection is common. Global advocacy organizations claim routine deworming has substantive health and societal effects beyond the removal of worms. In this update of the 2015 edition we included six new trials, additional data from included trials, and addressed comments and criticisms. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the effects of public health programmes to regularly treat all children with deworming drugs on child growth, haemoglobin, cognition, school attendance, school performance, physical fitness, and mortality. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; Embase; LILACS; the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT); reference lists; and registers of ongoing and completed trials up to 19 September 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared deworming drugs for soil-transmitted helminths (STHs) with placebo or no treatment in children aged 16 years or less, reporting on weight, height, haemoglobin, and formal tests of cognition. We also sought data on other measures of growth, school attendance, school performance, physical fitness, and mortality. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion, risk of bias, and extracted data. We analysed continuous data using the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where data were missing, we contacted trial authors. We stratified the analysis based on the background burden of STH infection. We used outcomes at time of longest follow-up. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 51 trials, including 10 cluster-RCTs, that met the inclusion criteria. One trial evaluating mortality included over one million children, and the remaining 50 trials included a total of 84,336 participants. Twenty-four trials were in populations categorized as high burden, including nine trials in children selected because they were helminth-stool positive; 18 with intermediate burden; and nine as low burden.First or single dose of deworming drugsFourteen trials reported on weight after a single dose of deworming drugs (4970 participants, 14 RCTs). The effects were variable. There was little or no effect in studies conducted in low and intermediate worm burden groups. In the high-burden group, there was little or no effect in most studies, except for a large effect detected from one study area in Kenya reported in two trials carried out over 30 years ago. These trials result in qualitative heterogeneity and uncertainty in the meta-analysis across all studies (I2 statistic = 90%), with GRADE assessment assessed as very low-certainty, which means we do not know if a first dose or single dose of deworming impacts on weight.For height, most studies showed little or no effect after a single dose, with one of the two trials in Kenya from 30 years ago showing a large average difference (2621 participants, 10 trials, low-certainty evidence). Single dose probably had no effect on average haemoglobin (MD 0.10 g/dL, 95% CI 0.03 lower to 0.22 higher; 1252 participants, five trials, moderate-certainty evidence), or on average cognition (1596 participants, five trials, low-certainty evidence). The data are insufficient to know if there is an effect on school attendance and performance (304 participants, one trial, low-certainty evidence), or on physical fitness (280 participants, three trials, very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported on mortality.Multiple doses of deworming drugsThe effect of regularly treating children with deworming drugs given every three to six months on weight was reported in 18 trials, with follow-up times of between six months and three years; there was little or no effect on average weight in all but two trials, irrespective of worm prevalence-intensity. The two trials with large average weight gain included one in the high burden area in Kenya carried out over 30 years ago, and one study from India in a low prevalence area where subsequent studies in the same area did not show an effect. This heterogeneity causes uncertainty in any meta-analysis (I2 = 78%). Post-hoc analysis excluding trials published prior to 2000 gave an estimate of average difference in weight gain of 0.02 kg (95%CI from 0.04 kg loss to 0.08 gain, I2 = 0%). Thus we conclude that we do not know if repeated doses of deworming drugs impact on average weight, with a fewer older studies showing large gains, and studies since 2000 showing little or no average gain.Regular treatment probably had little or no effect on the following parameters: average height (MD 0.02 cm higher, 95% CI 0.09 lower to 0.13 cm higher; 13,700 participants, 13 trials, moderate-certainty evidence); average haemoglobin (MD 0.01 g/dL lower; 95% CI 0.05 g/dL lower to 0.07 g/dL higher; 5498 participants, nine trials, moderate-certainty evidence); formal tests of cognition (35,394 participants, 8 trials, moderate-certainty evidence); school performance (34,967 participants, four trials, moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence assessing an effect on school attendance is inconsistent, and at risk of bias (mean attendance 2% higher, 95% CI 5% lower to 8% higher; 20,650 participants, three trials, very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported on physical fitness. No effect was shown on mortality (1,005,135 participants, three trials, low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Public health programmes to regularly treat all children with deworming drugs do not appear to improve height, haemoglobin, cognition, school performance, or mortality. We do not know if there is an effect on school attendance, since the evidence is inconsistent and at risk of bias, and there is insufficient data on physical fitness. Studies conducted in two settings over 20 years ago showed large effects on weight gain, but this is not a finding in more recent, larger studies. We would caution against selecting only the evidence from these older studies as a rationale for contemporary mass treatment programmes as this ignores the recent studies that have not shown benefit.The conclusions of the 2015 edition have not changed in this update.

Evidence and strategies for malaria prevention and control: a historical analysis.

Public health strategies for malaria in endemic countries aim to prevent transmission of the disease and control the vector. This historical analysis considers the strategies for vector control developed during the first four decades of the twentieth century. In 1925, policies and technological advances were debated internationally for the first time after the outbreak of malaria in Europe which followed World War I. This dialogue had implications for policies in Europe, Russia and the Middle East, and influenced the broader international control agenda. The analysis draws on the advances made before 1930, and includes the effects of mosquito-proofing of houses; the use of larvicides (Paris Green) and larvivorous fish (Gambusia); the role of large-scale engineering works; and the emergence of biological approaches to malaria. The importance of strong government and civil servant support was outlined. Despite best efforts of public health authorities, it became clear that it was notoriously difficult to interrupt transmission in areas of moderately high transmission. The importance of combining a variety of measures to achieve control became clear and proved successful in Palestine between 1923 and 1925, and improved education, economic circumstances and sustained political commitment emerge as key factors in the longer term control of malaria. The analysis shows that the principles for many of the present public health strategies for malaria have nearly all been defined before 1930, apart from large scale usage of pesticides, which came later at the end of the Second World War. No single intervention provided an effective single answer to preventing transmission, but certainly approaches taken that are locally relevant and applied in combination, are relevant to today's efforts at elimination.