Outpatient treatment of imported uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria: results from a survey among TropNet and GeoSentinel experts for tropical medicine
Journal of Travel Medicine·
- DOI
- 10.1093/jtm/taaa082
- PMID
- 32442249
- PMCID
- —
- OpenAlex
- W3028279285
- Study type
- Journal article
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Article type
- journal-article
- Integrity
- current
Why this research matters now
The article is relevant as a snapshot of how imported malaria is managed in referral centers and shows substantial variation in outpatient practice. It may be useful for editors looking at practice heterogeneity and the need for more standardized evidence, but it does not by itself establish a live surveillance signal.
Structured evidence summary
Research question
The paper asks how experts at tropical medicine referral centers manage imported uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria outside endemic regions, including how they choose outpatient care and which diagnostic or selection criteria they use.
Study design
This is an expert survey of TropNet and GeoSentinel referral centers. It is a descriptive journal article based on reported center practices.
Population and setting
The survey included 44 tropical medicine referral centers, most of them in Europe, and focused on management of imported uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria outside malaria-endemic settings.
Main findings
Most participating centers reported using outpatient treatment for uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria, while a smaller group treated patients only as inpatients. Reported outpatient decisions were based on clinical status, ability to take oral medication, adherence or follow-up factors, and patient origin or residence; parasitemia thresholds varied widely across centers. The abstract also reports a small proportion of outpatients later being admitted, and complications and deaths were reported by some centers over the prior decade.
Public-health relevance
The article is relevant as a snapshot of how imported malaria is managed in referral centers and shows substantial variation in outpatient practice. It may be useful for editors looking at practice heterogeneity and the need for more standardized evidence, but it does not by itself establish a live surveillance signal.
Important limitations
The abstract indicates no consensus among experts and notes that evidence-based criteria and established safety for outpatient management are lacking. This summary is limited to the supplied single-article abstract and metadata; the original paper is needed for decision-grade interpretation.
GIDS interpretation
For GIDS context, the article is discoverable as a descriptive survey of imported malaria management practices in specialized centers outside endemic areas. It provides background on practice variation and proposed decision factors, but it should not be read as confirming any surveillance alert or causal association.
Related GIDS surveillance
Literature context does not validate, explain, or change a surveillance signal. Exact and contextual relationships are shown separately.
Evidence relationships
This article has 12 auditable classifier relationships to diseases, places, topics, and study design.