Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 256

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Atovaquone‐Proguanil versus Mefloquine for Malaria Prophylaxis in Nonimmune Travelers: Results from a Randomized, Double‐Blind Study

Overbosch, David, Schilthuis, Herbert, Bienzle, Ulrich, Behrens, Ronald H., Kain, Kevin C., Clarke, Paul D., Toovey, Stephen, Knobloch, Jürgen, Nothdurft, Hans Dieter, Shaw, Dea, Roskell, Neil S., Chulay, Jeffrey D., the Malarone International Study Team·2001·Clinical Infectious Diseases
DOI 10.1086/322694
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Concerns about the tolerability of mefloquine highlight the need for new drugs to prevent malaria. Atovaquone-proguanil (Malarone; GlaxoSmithKline) was safe and effective for prevention of falciparum malaria in lifelong residents of malaria-endemic countries, but experience in nonimmune people is limited. In a randomized, double-blind study, nonimmune travelers received malaria prophylaxis with atovaquone-proguanil (493 subjects) or mefloquine (483 subjects). Information about adverse events (AEs) and potential episodes of malaria was obtained 7, 28, and 60 days after travel. AEs were reported by an equivalent proportion of subjects who had received atovaquone-proguanil or mefloquine (71.4% versus 67.3%; difference, 4.1%; 95% confidence interval, -1.71 to 9.9). Subjects who received atovaquone-proguanil had fewer treatment-related neuropsychiatric AEs (14% versus 29%; P=.001), fewer AEs of moderate or severe intensity (10% versus 19%; P=.001), and fewer AEs that caused prophylaxis to be discontinued (1.2% versus 5.0%; P=.001), compared with subjects who received melfoquine. No confirmed diagnoses of malaria occurred in either group. Atovaquone-proguanil was better tolerated than was mefloquine, and it was similarly effective for malaria prophylaxis in nonimmune travelers.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/322694

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 11 references

Cited by

See all 256

Metadata

Authors
Overbosch, D., Schilthuis, H., Bienzle, U., Behrens, R. H., Kain, K. C., Clarke, P. D., Toovey, S., Knobloch, J., Nothdurft, H. D., Shaw, D., Roskell, N. S., Chulay, J. D., & the Malarone International Study Team
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2001-10
Volume
33
Issue
7
Pages
1015-1021
ISSN
  • 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6591
DOI
10.1086/322694
OpenAlex
W2109766515
Cited by
256
References
11
FWCI
26.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Atovaquone‐Proguanil versus Mefloquine for Malaria Prophylaxis in Nonimmune Travelers: Results from a Randomized, Double‐Blind Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/322694
The paper
Overbosch, D., Schilthuis, H., Bienzle, U., Behrens, R. H., Kain, K. C., Clarke, P. D., Toovey, S., Knobloch, J., Nothdurft, H. D., Shaw, D., Roskell, N. S., Chulay, J. D., & the Malarone International Study Team. (2001). Atovaquone‐Proguanil versus Mefloquine for Malaria Prophylaxis in Nonimmune Travelers: Results from a Randomized, Double‐Blind Study. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1086/322694

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.