ArticleMalaria journal2014
Comparative performance of aldolase and lactate dehydrogenase rapid diagnostic tests in Plasmodium vivax detection.
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 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of rapid diagnostic tests, microscopy, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) and PCR for malaria diagnosis in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Malaria journal · 2021Pooled it
- Rapid diagnostic tests for Plasmodium vivax malaria in endemic countries.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Summary of discordant results between rapid diagnosis tests, microscopy, and polymerase chain reaction for detecting Plasmodium mixed infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2020Pooled it
- Exploring Biomarkers for Malaria: Advances in Early Detection and Asymptomatic Diagnosis.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Expression, Purification, and Characterization ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Recent Advances in the Development of Biosensors for Malaria Diagnosis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Article
- Diagnostic tools for tackling febrile illness and enhancing patient management.Microelectronic engineering · 2018Article
- An Update on Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Tests.Current infectious disease reports · 2018Review
- Development of Monoclonal Antibodies for Diagnosis of Plasmodium vivax.The Korean journal of parasitology · 2017Article
- Article
- The Validity of Rapid Malaria Test and Microscopy in Detecting Malaria in a Preelimination Region of Egypt.Scientifica · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMisdiagnosis of malaria by commercial rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) is a major cause of concern in the diagnosis of malaria. This retrospective study was aimed at assessing the relative performance of four RDTs with emphasis on the detection of two Plasmodium vivax antigens: aldolase and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH).
methodsThree commercially available Plasmodium LDH or aldolase antigen detection kits (One Step Malaria P.f/P.v, ParaHit Total ver. 1.0, SD Bioline Malaria) and an anti-P. vivax aldolase-specific monoclonal antibody (mAb) pair 1C3-12 F10 were evaluated with P. vivax positive as well as non-P. vivax samples and healthy samples using blood smear examination as standard. Each test was read according to the manufacturer's instructions.
resultsMAb 1C3-12 F10 pair targeting P. vivax-specific aldolase exhibited very good specificity and sensitivity of 100 and 97.4%, respectively. Positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 100 and 99.5%, respectively, were also observed. The anti-P. vivax LDH in the One-Step Malaria P.f/P.v test showed sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of 93.5, 98.0, 88.9 and 98.8%, respectively. ParaHit Total ver. 1.0 targeting the pan-aldolase antigen showed sensitivity, specificity of 97.4 and 99.6%, respectively. PPV and NPV were both 99.5%. SD Bioline had sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of 93.5, 100, 100 and 98.8%, respectively. The overall sensitivity and specificity of all four RDTs were acceptable, especially for the aldolase detection tests. Five (6.5%) of the P. vivax-positive samples (n = 77) that were confirmed by microscopic examination as well as the two aldolase detection RDTs (mAb 1C3-12 F10 and ParaHit Total ver.1.0) were undetected by the two LDH detection RDTs (One Step Malaria P.f/P.v and SD Bioline). Similarly, two positive samples (2.6%) that were positively confirmed by the LDH detection RDTs were also undetected by the aldolase detection test kits.
conclusionAldolase and LDH antigens perform differently in different P. vivax samples; hence there is a high risk of misdiagnosis when monoclonal antibodies are used against only one particular antigen in the test. A combination of both aldolase and LDH in RDTs for the rapid diagnosis of P. vivax will enhance the sensitivity of the assay and reduce misdiagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.