The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Meta-analysis of intervention trials on case-management of pneumonia in community settings
Open accessAbstract
To appraise the effectiveness of the pneumonia case-management strategy in improving child survival, we have done a meta-analysis of six published intervention trials. The results of a seventh published study and two unpublished studies were also reviewed. The six published studies satisfied our criteria for methodological soundness. The reduction in mortality rate (control group minus intervention group) was estimated for each study, and for all the studies together. For total infant mortality, the overall reduction was 15.9 (95% confidence interval 10.6-21.1) deaths per 1000 livebirths; infant mortality due to acute lower respiratory infection was reduced by 10.7 (4.8-16.7) deaths/1000 livebirths. Mortality among children under 5 years was decreased by 36 deaths/1000 livebirths. The pooled estimates of relative risk are consistent with a 20% reduction in infant mortality and a 25% reduction in under-5 mortality. There was no clear association across the studies between the effect of the pneumonia case-management and extent of co-interventions such as immunisation and oral rehydration therapy. The consistency of findings of all the studies, despite differences in design and methods, shows that the case-management strategy has a substantial effect on infant and under-5 mortality, at least in settings with infant mortality rates of 90/1000 livebirths or more. It is important to find out the most efficient ways of implementing this strategy and integrating it into primary health care.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The combination of estimates from different experiments
Cochran, W. G. (1954) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/3001666 · Cited by 5,380
A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial
Chalmers, T. C., Smith, H., Blackburn, B., Silverman, B., Schroeder, B., Reitman, D., & Ambroz, A. (1981) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(81)90056-8 · Cited by 1,349
Cited by
How many child deaths can we prevent this year?
Jones, G., Steketee, R. W., Black, R. E., Bhutta, Z. A., & Morris, S. S. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)13811-1 · Cited by 2,244
Self-citationSazawal, S., Black, R. E., Jalla, S., Mazumdar, S., Sinha, A., & Bhan, M. K. (1998) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.102.1.1 · Cited by 543
Self-citationPerry, H., Robison, N., Chavez, D., Taja, O., Hilari, C., Shanklin, D., & Wyon, J. (1999) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00406-7 · Cited by 59
Metadata
- Authors
- Sazawal, S., & Black, R. E.
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1992-08
- Volume
- 340
- Issue
- 8818
- Pages
- 528-533
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W2148025464
- Cited by
- 168
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Meta-analysis of intervention trials on case-management of pneumonia in community settings. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0140-6736(92)91720-s
- The paper
- Sazawal, S., & Black, R. E. (1992). Meta-analysis of intervention trials on case-management of pneumonia in community settings. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(92)91720-s
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.