Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21829735›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2011

Diagnostic accuracy of a prototype point-of-care test for ocular Chlamydia trachomatis under field conditions in The Gambia and Senegal.

Emma M Harding-Esch, Martin J Holland, Jean-François Schémann, Sandra Molina, Isatou Sarr, Aura A Andreasen, Chrissy h Roberts, Ansumana Sillah, Boubacar Sarr, Edward F Harding and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Trachoma.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2022
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Trachoma: an update on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.Current opinion in ophthalmology · 2012
    Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Emma M Harding-EschLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Martin J Holland
Jean-François Schémann
Sandra Molina
Isatou Sarr
Aura A Andreasen
Chrissy h Roberts
Ansumana Sillah
Boubacar Sarr
Edward F Harding
Tansy Edwards
Robin L Bailey
David C W Mabey
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of London · GBMRC Unit the Gambia · GMInstitut de Recherche pour le Développement · SNMinistère de la Santé · LUMinistry of Health and Social Welfare · GM

Funding

Medical Research Council G0700837Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 078460/Z/05/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe clinical signs of active trachoma are often present in the absence of ocular Chlamydia trachomatis infection in low prevalence and mass treated settings. Treatment decisions are currently based on the prevalence of clinical signs, and this may result in the unnecessary distribution of mass antibiotic treatment. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a prototype point-of-care (POC) test, developed for field diagnosis of ocular C. trachomatis, in low prevalence settings of The Gambia and Senegal. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsThree studies were conducted, two in The Gambia and one in Senegal. Children under the age of 10 years were screened for the clinical signs of trachoma. Two ocular swabs were taken from the right eye. The first swab was tested by the POC test in the field and the result independently graded by two readers. The second swab was tested for the presence of C. trachomatis by Amplicor Polymerase Chain Reaction. In Senegal, measurements of humidity and temperature in the field were taken. A total of 3734 children were screened, 950 in the first and 1171 in the second Gambian study, and 1613 in Senegal. The sensitivity of the prototype POC test ranged between 33.3-67.9%, the specificity between 92.4-99.0%, the positive predictive value between 4.3-21.0%, and the negative predictive value between 98.0-99.8%. The rate of false-positives increased markedly at temperatures above 31.4°C and relative humidities below 11.4%. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: In its present format, this prototype POC test is not suitable for field diagnosis of ocular C. trachomatis as its specificity decreases in hot and dry conditions: the environment in which trachoma is predominantly found. In the absence of a suitable test for infection, trachoma diagnosis remains dependent on clinical signs. Under current WHO recommendations, this is likely resulting in the continued mass treatment of non-infected communities.

Indexed as

Point-of-Care SystemsReagent Kits, DiagnosticChildChild, PreschoolChlamydia trachomatisEyeFalse Positive ReactionsGambiaHumansHumidityInfantLogistic ModelsPolymerase Chain ReactionPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsSenegalReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID21829735
PMCPMC3149007
OpenAlexW2049427675

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.