Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27559728›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Target Product Profile for a Diagnostic Assay to Differentiate between Bacterial and Non-Bacterial Infections and Reduce Antimicrobial Overuse in Resource-Limited Settings: An Expert Consensus.

Sabine Dittrich, Birkneh Tilahun Tadesse, Francis Moussy, Arlene Chua, Anna Zorzet, Thomas Tängdén, David L Dolinger, Anne-Laure Page, John A Crump, Valerie D'Acremont and 6 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Mass of components and material distribution in lateral flow assay kits.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

16 authors.

Sabine DittrichFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), 9 Chemin des Mines, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland.
Birkneh Tilahun TadesseFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), 9 Chemin des Mines, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland.
Francis MoussyWorld Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211, Geneva 27, Switzerland.
Arlene ChuaInstitute of Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Anna ZorzetReAct Europe, Uppsala University, Box 256, 751 05, Uppsala, Sweden.
Thomas TängdénReAct Europe, Uppsala University, Box 256, 751 05, Uppsala, Sweden.
David L DolingerFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), 9 Chemin des Mines, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland.
Anne-Laure PageEpidemiology and Population Health, Epicentre, Paris, France.
John A CrumpCentre for International Health, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand.
Valerie D'AcremontSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, 4002 Basel, Switzerland.
Quique BassatISGlobal, Barcelona Ctr. Int. Health Res. (CRESIB), Hospital Clínic-Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Yoel LubellCentre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Paul N NewtonCentre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Norbert HeinrichDivision for Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Medical Center of the University of Munich (LMU), Munich, Germany; German Center for Infection Research, Munich partner site, Leopoldstr 5, D-80802, Munich, Germany.
Timothy J RodwellFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), 9 Chemin des Mines, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland.
Iveth J GonzálezFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), 9 Chemin des Mines, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

Investigating Febrile Deaths in Tanzania (INDITe)R01AI121378 · NIAID · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI RUBACH, MATTHEW P · 2016 to 2020
$2.7M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI121378World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acute fever is one of the most common presenting symptoms globally. In order to reduce the empiric use of antimicrobial drugs and improve outcomes, it is essential to improve diagnostic capabilities. In the absence of microbiology facilities in low-income settings, an assay to distinguish bacterial from non-bacterial causes would be a critical first step. To ensure that patient and market needs are met, the requirements of such a test should be specified in a target product profile (TPP). To identify minimal/optimal characteristics for a bacterial vs. non-bacterial fever test, experts from academia and international organizations with expertise in infectious diseases, diagnostic test development, laboratory medicine, global health, and health economics were convened. Proposed TPPs were reviewed by this working group, and consensus characteristics were defined. The working group defined non-severely ill, non-malaria infected children as the target population for the desired assay. To provide access to the most patients, the test should be deployable to community health centers and informal health settings, and staff should require <2 days of training to perform the assay. Further, given that the aim is to reduce inappropriate antimicrobial use as well as to deliver appropriate treatment for patients with bacterial infections, the group agreed on minimal diagnostic performance requirements of >90% and >80% for sensitivity and specificity, respectively. Other key characteristics, to account for the challenging environment at which the test is targeted, included: i) time-to-result <10 min (but maximally <2 hrs); ii) storage conditions at 0-40°C, ≤90% non-condensing humidity with a minimal shelf life of 12 months; iii) operational conditions of 5-40°C, ≤90% non-condensing humidity; and iv) minimal sample collection needs (50-100μL, capillary blood). This expert approach to define assay requirements for a bacterial vs. non-bacterial assay should guide product development, and enable targeted and timely efforts by industry partners and academic institutions.

Indexed as

Bacterial InfectionsConsensusDeveloping CountriesDiagnosis, DifferentialFeverHumansMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesPractice Guidelines as TopicReagent Kits, DiagnosticSensitivity and SpecificityReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID27559728
PMCPMC4999186

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.