Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27336943›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2016

Evaluation of Six Commercially Available Rapid Immunochromatographic Tests for the Diagnosis of Rabies in Brain Material.

Elisa Eggerbauer, Paola de Benedictis, Bernd Hoffmann, Thomas C Mettenleiter, Kore Schlottau, Ernest C Ngoepe, Claude T Sabeta, Conrad M Freuling, Thomas Müller

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Recent updates on laboratory diagnosis of rabies.The Indian journal of medical research · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Elisa EggerbauerWHO Collaborating Centre for Rabies Surveillance and Research, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut (FLI), Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Institute of Molecular Virology and Cell Biology, Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany.
Paola de BenedictisFAO Reference Centre for Rabies, Instituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Legnaro, Italy.
Bernd HoffmannFLI, Institute of Diagnostic Virology, Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany.
Thomas C MettenleiterWHO Collaborating Centre for Rabies Surveillance and Research, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut (FLI), Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Institute of Molecular Virology and Cell Biology, Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany.
Kore SchlottauFLI, Institute of Diagnostic Virology, Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany.
Ernest C NgoepeOIE Rabies Reference Laboratory, Agricultural Research Council, Onderstepoort Veterinary Institute, Pretoria, South Africa.
Claude T SabetaOIE Rabies Reference Laboratory, Agricultural Research Council, Onderstepoort Veterinary Institute, Pretoria, South Africa.
Conrad M FreulingWHO Collaborating Centre for Rabies Surveillance and Research, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut (FLI), Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Institute of Molecular Virology and Cell Biology, Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany.
Thomas MüllerWHO Collaborating Centre for Rabies Surveillance and Research, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut (FLI), Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Institute of Molecular Virology and Cell Biology, Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rabies is a neglected zoonotic disease that causes an estimated 60,000 human deaths annually. The main burden lies on developing countries in Asia and Africa, where surveillance and disease detection is hampered by absence of adequate laboratory facilities and/or the difficulties of submitting samples from remote areas to laboratories. Under these conditions, easy-to-use tests such as immunochromatographic assays, i.e. lateral flow devices (LFD), may increase surveillance and improve control efforts. Several LFDs for rabies diagnosis are available but, except for one, there are no data regarding their performance. Therefore, we compared six commercially available LFDs for diagnostic and analytical sensitivity, as well as their specificity and their diagnostic agreement with standard rabies diagnostic techniques using different sample sets, including experimentally infected animals and several sets of field samples. Using field samples the sensitivities ranged between 0% up to 100% depending on the LFD and the samples, while for experimentally infected animals the maximum sensitivity was 32%. Positive results in LFD could be further validated using RT-qPCR and sequencing. In summary, in our study none of the tests investigated proved to be satisfactory, although the results somewhat contradict previous studies, indicating batch to batch variation. The high number of false negative results reiterates the necessity to perform a proper test validation before being marketed and used in the field. In this respect, marketing authorization and batch release control could secure a sufficient quality for these alternative tests, which could then fulfil their potential.

Indexed as

MammalsAnimalsBrainChromatography, AffinityHumansRabiesRabies virusReagent Kits, DiagnosticRNA, ViralSensitivity and SpecificityViral LoadReagent Kits, DiagnosticRNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID27336943
PMCPMC4918935

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.