ArticlePloS one2014
Evaluation of rapid blood sample collection in the detection of circulating filarial antigens for epidemiological survey by rWbSXP-1 capture assay.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Use of Dried Matrix Spots as an Alternative Sampling Technique for Monitoring Neglected Tropical Diseases.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Molecular evolution of single chain fragment variable (scFv) for diagnosis of lymphatic filariasis.Molecular biology reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLymphatic filariasis is a neglected tropical disease leading to profound disfiguring causing socio economic burden in the tropics. Current diagnosis strategies available during field surveys and epidemics are based on traditional microscopic detections and a few antigen/antibody assays. We have compared different sampling methodologies and standardized the highly sensitive and reliable rWbSXP-1 antigen detection assay to our new sampling methodology. METHODOLOGY: Samples collected as serum, whole blood, whole blood on filter paper and whole blood on microscopic slides from patients belonging to various clinical groups of filariasis [endemic normal(EN), chronic pathology(CP), microfilaraemic(MF) and non-endemic normal(NEN)] were collected and standardized the rWbSXP-1 antigen detection assay using monoclonal antibody raised against rWbSXP-1 protein. The whole blood collected on microscopic slide based sampling method was employed in the field and the presence of circulating filarial antigen (CFA) was assessed using the rWbSXP-1 assay. PRINCIPAL
findingsThe sampling methods were compared and no significant difference was observed for the detection of CFA (MF, P = 0.304, EN, P = 0.675, CP, P = 0.5698, NEN, P = 0.4494). Further the optimized sampling method was utilized to collect the 1106 samples from Polur, Tiruvannamalai. The rWbSXP-1 assay gave 98 antigen positive results whereas the microscopic method gave only 17.
conclusionsFour sampling methodologies were analyzed and the new sampling methodology of whole blood collected on microscopic slide was found to be convenient for the detection of CFA using rWbSXP-1 antigen detection assay. The 1106 samples from Polur were collected using the new method. The rWbSXP-1 antigen assay perceived a 7.32% increased result which was read as false negatives on the conventional microscopic staining method. This new sampling methodology coupled with the rWbSXP-1 antigen assay can be used in epidemiological surveys for lymphatic filariasis and the same sampling methodology can be expanded to other antigen based high affinity assays.
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.