ArticleDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2017
Evaluation of a field test for antibodies against Chlamydia trachomatis during trachoma surveillance in Nepal.
Article in Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Community-level chlamydial serology for assessing trachoma elimination in trachoma-endemic Niger.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2019Trial
- The use of serology for trachoma surveillance: Current status and priorities for future investigation.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2020Review
- Advancing the public health applications of Chlamydia trachomatis serology.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2018Review
- Serological and PCR-based markers of ocular Chlamydia trachomatis transmission in northern Ghana after elimination of trachoma as a public health problem.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTesting for antibodies to Chlamydia trachomatis has potential as a surveillance tool. Our evaluation compares lateral flow assays (LFAs) during surveillance surveys in Nepal with Multiplex bead array (MBA). Fifty children were randomly sampled from each of 15 random clusters in two districts of Nepal. Finger prick blood samples were collected from 1509 children and tested onsite for anti-Pgp3 antibodies by LFA. The LFA was read at 30min as negative, positive, or invalid. Tests results were also rated as difficult to read ("equivocal"). Blood was processed at Johns Hopkins University using the MBA.
resultsThe LFA had agreement of 40.0% for MBA-positive samples and 99.3% for MBA-negative samples. Inter-reader reliability was kappa=0.65 (95% CI=0.56-0.74). If the equivocal results (7%) could be decreased, reliability could be improved.
conclusionsFurther optimization and testing of the LFA test are needed to improve agreement with MBA and the interpretation of the results.
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.