Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 232

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Required duration of mass ivermectin treatment for onchocerciasis elimination in Africa: a comparative modelling analysis

Open access
Stolk, Wilma A., Walker, Martin, Coffeng, Luc E., Basáñez, María-Gloria, de Vlas, Sake J.·2015·Parasites & Vectors

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) has set ambitious targets for the elimination of onchocerciasis by 2020-2025 through mass ivermectin treatment. Two different mathematical models have assessed the feasibility of reaching this goal for different settings and treatment scenarios, namely the individual-based microsimulation model ONCHOSIM and the population-based deterministic model EPIONCHO. In this study, we harmonize some crucial assumptions and compare model predictions on common outputs. METHODS: Using a range of initial endemicity levels and treatment scenarios, we compared the models with respect to the following outcomes: 1) model-predicted trends in microfilarial (mf) prevalence and mean mf intensity during 25 years of (annual or biannual) mass ivermectin treatment; 2) treatment duration needed to bring mf prevalence below a provisional operational threshold for treatment interruption (pOTTIS, i.e. 1.4 %), and 3) treatment duration needed to drive the parasite population to local elimination, even in the absence of further interventions. Local elimination was judged by stochastic fade-out in ONCHOSIM and by reaching transmission breakpoints in EPIONCHO. RESULTS: ONCHOSIM and EPIONCHO both predicted that in mesoendemic areas the pOTTIS can be reached with annual treatment, but that this strategy may be insufficient in very highly hyperendemic areas or would require prolonged continuation of treatment. For the lower endemicity levels explored, ONCHOSIM predicted that the time needed to reach the pOTTIS is longer than that needed to drive the parasite population to elimination, whereas for the higher endemicity levels the opposite was true. In EPIONCHO, the pOTTIS was reached consistently sooner than the breakpoint. CONCLUSIONS: The operational thresholds proposed by APOC may have to be adjusted to adequately reflect differences in pre-control endemicities. Further comparative modelling work will be conducted to better understand the main causes of differences in model-predicted trends. This is a pre-requisite for guiding elimination programmes in Africa and refining operational criteria for stopping mass treatment.

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 · 10.1186/s13071-015-1159-9

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.

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

Cited by

See all 232

Metadata

Authors
Stolk, W. A., Walker, M., Coffeng, L. E., Basáñez, M.-G., & de Vlas, S. J.
Venue
Parasites & Vectors
Published
2015-10-22
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
552-552
ISSN
1756-3305 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2105272113
Cited by
232
References
0
FWCI
16.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Required duration of mass ivermectin treatment for onchocerciasis elimination in Africa: a comparative modelling analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s13071-015-1159-9
The paper
Stolk, W. A., Walker, M., Coffeng, L. E., Basáñez, M.-G., & de Vlas, S. J. (2015). Required duration of mass ivermectin treatment for onchocerciasis elimination in Africa: a comparative modelling analysis. Parasites & Vectors. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-015-1159-9

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.