Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24636636›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2014

Paracheck® rapid diagnostic test for detecting malaria infection in under five children: a population-based survey in Burkina Faso.

Sekou Samadoulougou, Fati Kirakoya-Samadoulougou, Sophie Sarrassat, Halidou Tinto, Fidèle Bakiono, Issa Nebié, Annie Robert

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation 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 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Sekou SamadoulougouPôle Epidémiologie et Biostatistique, Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Faculté de Santé Publique (FSP), Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), Clos Chapelle-aux-champs 30, bte B1,30,13, 1200 Bruxelles, Belgium. sekou.samadoulougou@uclouvain.be.
Fati Kirakoya-Samadoulougou
Sophie Sarrassat
Halidou Tinto
Fidèle Bakiono
Issa Nebié
Annie Robert
UCLouvain · BECentre Muraz · BFCentre National de Recherche et de Formation sur le Paludisme · BFLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the past ten years, Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDT) played a major role in improving the use of biological malaria diagnosis, in particular in poor-resources settings. In Burkina Faso, a recent Demography and Health Survey (DHS) gave the opportunity to assess the performance of the Paracheck® test in under five children nationwide at community level.

methodsA national representative sample of 14,947 households was selected using a stratified two-stage cluster sampling. In one out of two households, all under five children were eligible to be tested for malaria using both RDT and microscopy diagnosis. Paracheck® performance was assessed using miscroscopy as the gold standard. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated as well as the diagnosis accuracy (DA) and the Youden index.

resultsThe malaria infection prevalence was estimated at 66% (95% CI: 64.8-67.2) according to microscopy and at 76.2% (95% CI: 75.1-77.3) according to Paracheck®. The sensitivity and specificity were estimated at 89.9% (95% CI: 89.0-90.8) and 50.4% (95% CI: 48.3-52.6) respectively with a Diagnosis Accuracy of 77% and a Youden index of 40%. The positive predictive value for malaria infection was 77.9% (95% CI: 76.7-79.1) and the negative predictive value was 72.1% (95% CI: 69.7-74.3). Variations were found by age group, period of the year and urban and rural areas, as well as across the 13 regions of the country.

conclusionWhile the sensitivity of the Paracheck® test was high, its specificity was poor in the general under five population of Burkina Faso. These results suggest that Paracheck® is not suitable to assess malaria infection prevalence at community level in areas with high malaria transmission. In such settings, malaria prevalence in the general population could be estimated using microscopy.

Indexed as

Burkina FasoChild, PreschoolDiagnostic Tests, RoutineFemaleHumansInfantMalariaMaleMass ScreeningParasitologyPredictive Value of TestsPrevalenceSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID24636636
PMCPMC3995324
OpenAlexW2122378532

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.