Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24467985›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2014

Field evaluation of the photo-induced electron transfer fluorogenic primers (PET) real-time PCR for the detection of Plasmodium falciparum in Tanzania.

Eldin Talundzic, Mussa Maganga, Irene M Masanja, David S Peterson, Venkatachalam Udhayakumar, Naomi W Lucchi

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Malaria journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Prevalence ofThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2020
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Diagnostic Methods for Non-Falciparum Malaria.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Emergence and Spread ofAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2018
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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.

Eldin Talundzic
Mussa Maganga
Irene M Masanja
David S Peterson
Venkatachalam Udhayakumar
Naomi W LucchiMalaria Branch, Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Center for Global Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. NLucchi@cdc.gov.

Funding

Training in Tropical and Emerging Global Diseases - SupplementT32AI060546 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA (UGA) · PI Silvia N Moreno, Vasant Muralidharan · 2004 to 2026
$5.1M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate diagnosis of malaria infections remains challenging, especially in the identification of submicroscopic infections. New molecular diagnostic tools that are inexpensive, sensitive enough to detect low-level infections and suitable in laboratory settings of resource-limited countries are required for malaria control and elimination programmes. Here the diagnostic potential of a recently developed photo-induced electron transfer fluorogenic primer (PET) real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) called PET-PCR was investigated. This study aimed to (i) evaluate the use of this assay as a method for the detection of both Plasmodium falciparum and other Plasmodium species infections in a developing country's diagnostic laboratory; and, (ii) determine the assay's sensitivity and specificity compared to a nested 18S rRNA PCR.

methodsSamples used in this study were obtained from a previous study conducted in the region of Iringa, Tanzania. A total of 303 samples from eight health facilities in Tanzania were utilized for this evaluation. All samples were screened using the multiplex PET-PCR assay designed to detect Plasmodium genus and P. falciparum initially in laboratory in Tanzania and then repeated at a reference laboratory at the CDC in the USA. Microscopy data was available for all the 303 samples. A subset of the samples were tested in a blinded fashion to find the sensitivity and specificity of the PET-PCR compared to the nested 18S rRNA PCR.

resultsCompared to microscopy, the PET-PCR assay was 59% more sensitive in detecting P. falciparum infections. The observed sensitivity and specificity were 100% (95% confidence interval (CI0.95) = 94-100%) and (CI0.95 = 96-100%), respectively, for the PET-PCR assay when compared to nested 18S rRNA PCR. When compared to 18S rRNA PCR, microscopy had a low sensitivity of 40% (CI0.95 = 23-61%) and specificity of 100% (CI0.95 = 96-100%). The PET-PCR results performed in the field laboratory in Tanzania were in 100% concordance with the results obtained at the reference laboratory in the USA.

conclusionThe PET-PCR is a new molecular diagnostic tool with similar performance characteristics as commonly used PCR methods that is less expensive, easy to use, and amiable to large scale-surveillance studies in developing country settings.

Indexed as

DNA PrimersDNA, ProtozoanFluorescent DyesMalaria, FalciparumMicroscopyMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesMultiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionPlasmodium falciparumReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionRNA, Ribosomal, 18SSensitivity and SpecificityTanzaniaDNA PrimersDNA, ProtozoanFluorescent DyesRNA, Ribosomal, 18S

Identifiers

PMID24467985
PMCPMC3917897

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.