Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 288

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Progress towards onchocerciasis elimination in the participating countries of the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control: epidemiological evaluation results

Open access
Tekle, Afework H., Zouré, Honorath G. M., Noma, Mounkaila, Boussinesq, Michel, Coffeng, Luc E., Stolk, Wilma A., Remme, Jan H. F.·2016·Infectious Diseases of Poverty

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control (APOC) was created in 1995 to establish community-directed treatment with ivermectin (CDTi) in order to control onchocerciasis as a public health problem in 20 African countries that had 80 % of the global disease burden. When research showed that CDTi may ultimately eliminate onchocerciasis infection, APOC was given in 2008 the additional objective to determine when and where treatment can be safely stopped. We report the results of epidemiological evaluations undertaken from 2008 to 2014 to assess progress towards elimination in CDTi areas with ≥6 years treatment. METHODS: Skin snip surveys were undertaken in samples of first-line villages to determine the prevalence of O. volvulus microfilariae. There were two evaluation phases. The decline in prevalence was evaluated in phase 1A. Observed and model-predicted prevalences were compared after correcting for endemicity level and treatment coverage. Bayesian statistics and Monte Carlo simulation were used to classify the decline in prevalence as faster than predicted, on track or delayed. Where the prevalence approached elimination levels, phase 1B was launched to determine if treatment could be safely stopped. Village sampling was extended to the whole CDTi area. Survey data were analysed within a Bayesian framework to determine if stopping criteria (overall prevalence <1.4 % and maximum stratum prevalence <5 %) were met. RESULTS: In phase 1A 127 665 people from 639 villages in 54 areas were examined. The prevalence had fallen dramatically. The decline in prevalence was faster than predicted in 23 areas, on track in another 23 and delayed in eight areas. In phase 1B 108 636 people in 392 villages were examined in 22 areas of which 13 met the epidemiological criteria for stopping treatment. Overall, 32 areas (25.4 million people) had reached or were close to elimination, 18 areas (17.4 million) were on track but required more years treatment, and in eight areas (10.4 million) progress was unsatisfactory. CONCLUSIONS: Onchocerciasis has been largely controlled as a public health problem. Great progress has been made towards elimination which already appears to have been achieved for millions of people. For most APOC countries, nationwide onchocerciasis elimination is within reach.

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/s40249-016-0160-7

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 288

Metadata

Authors
Tekle, A. H., Zouré, H. G. M., Noma, M., Boussinesq, M., Coffeng, L. E., Stolk, W. A., & Remme, J. H. F.
Venue
Infectious Diseases of Poverty
Published
2016-06-27
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
66-66
ISSN
2049-9957 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2462776788
Cited by
288
References
0
FWCI
21.28
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: Progress towards onchocerciasis elimination in the participating countries of the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control: epidemiological evaluation results. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s40249-016-0160-7
The paper
Tekle, A. H., Zouré, H. G. M., Noma, M., Boussinesq, M., Coffeng, L. E., Stolk, W. A., & Remme, J. H. F. (2016). Progress towards onchocerciasis elimination in the participating countries of the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control: epidemiological evaluation results. Infectious Diseases of Poverty. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40249-016-0160-7

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.