Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23301027›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Self-diagnosis of malaria by travelers and expatriates: assessment of malaria rapid diagnostic tests available on the internet.

Jessica Maltha, Philippe Gillet, Marloes Heutmekers, Emmanuel Bottieau, Alfons Van Gompel, Jan Jacobs

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02900079 (New Tools for Diagnosis and Management of Febrile Illness in Travelers to the Tropics), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT02900079 withdrawnnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

New Tools for Diagnosis and Management of Febrile Illness in Travelers to the Tropics: a Cohort Study- JOKA I

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorInstitute of Tropical Medicine, BelgiumRan2023 to 2024Enrolled0ConditionsFever, MalariaArmsrapid diagnostic test for malaria antigen
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Jessica MalthaDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium. jmaltha@itg.be
Philippe Gillet
Marloes Heutmekers
Emmanuel Bottieau
Alfons Van Gompel
Jan Jacobs

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn the past malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for self-diagnosis by travelers were considered suboptimal due to poor performance. Nowadays RDTs for self-diagnosis are marketed and available through the internet. The present study assessed RDT products marketed for self-diagnosis for diagnostic accuracy and quality of labeling, content and instructions for use (IFU).

methodsDiagnostic accuracy of eight RDT products was assessed with a panel of stored whole blood samples comprising the four Plasmodium species (n = 90) as well as Plasmodium negative samples (n = 10). IFUs were assessed for quality of description of procedure and interpretation and for lay-out and readability level. Errors in packaging and content were recorded.

resultsTwo products gave false-positive test lines in 70% and 80% of Plasmodium negative samples, precluding their use. Of the remaining products, 4/6 had good to excellent sensitivity for the diagnosis of Plasmodium falciparum (98.2%-100.0%) and Plasmodium vivax (93.3%-100.0%). Sensitivity for Plasmodium ovale and Plasmodium malariae diagnosis was poor (6.7%-80.0%). All but one product yielded false-positive test lines after reading beyond the recommended reading time. Problems with labeling (not specifying target antigens (n = 3), and content (desiccant with no humidity indicator (n = 6)) were observed. IFUs had major shortcomings in description of test procedure and interpretation, poor readability and lay-out and user-unfriendly typography. Strategic issues (e.g. the need for repeat testing and reasons for false-negative tests) were not addressed in any of the IFUs.

conclusionDiagnostic accuracy of RDTs for self-diagnosis was variable, with only 4/8 RDT products being reliable for the diagnosis of P. falciparum and P. vivax, and none for P. ovale and P. malariae. RDTs for self-diagnosis need improvements in IFUs (content and user-friendliness), labeling and content before they can be considered for self-diagnosis by the traveler.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Self EvaluationReagent Kits, DiagnosticFalse Positive ReactionsHumansInternetMalariaModels, StatisticalObserver VariationPlasmodium falciparumPlasmodium malariaePlasmodium ovalePlasmodium vivaxPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsTravelReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID23301027
PMCPMC3534644

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.