Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28369081›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2017

Rapid diagnostic tests duo as alternative to conventional serological assays for conclusive Chagas disease diagnosis.

Karina E Egüez, Julio Alonso-Padilla, Carolina Terán, Zenobia Chipana, Wilson García, Faustino Torrico, Joaquim Gascon, Daniel-Franz Lozano-Beltran, María-Jesús Pinazo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Screening strategies for Chagas Disease: evaluation of a field diagnostic algorithm in Santiago del EsteroRevista de la Facultad de Ciencias Medicas (Cordoba, Argentina) · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Identification of highly conservedEmerging microbes & infections · 2024
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Frontiers in microbiology · 2024
    Article
  20. Observational
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.

Karina E EgüezDepartmental Reference Laboratory, Chuquisaca Departmental Health Service (SEDES-Chuquisaca), Sucre, Bolivia.
Julio Alonso-PadillaBarcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal), Centre for Research in International Health (CRESIB), Hospital Clinic-University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4466-7969
Carolina TeránSchool of Medicine, University of San Francisco Xavier of Chuquisaca, Sucre, Bolivia; and Health Area, Simón Bolívar Andean University, Sucre, Bolivia.
Zenobia ChipanaDepartmental Reference Laboratory, Chuquisaca Departmental Health Service (SEDES-Chuquisaca), Sucre, Bolivia.
Wilson GarcíaFundación CEADES, Cochabamba, Bolivia.
Faustino TorricoFundación CEADES, Cochabamba, Bolivia.
Joaquim GasconBarcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal), Centre for Research in International Health (CRESIB), Hospital Clinic-University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Daniel-Franz Lozano-BeltranFundación CEADES, Cochabamba, Bolivia.
María-Jesús PinazoBarcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal), Centre for Research in International Health (CRESIB), Hospital Clinic-University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chagas disease is caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi. It affects several million people, mainly in Latin America, and severe cardiac and/or digestive complications occur in ~30% of the chronically infected patients. Disease acute stage is mostly asymptomatic and infection goes undiagnosed. In the chronic phase direct parasite detection is hampered due to its concealed presence and diagnosis is achieved by serological methods, like ELISA or indirect hemagglutination assays. Agreement in at least two tests must be obtained due to parasite wide antigenic variability. These techniques require equipped labs and trained personnel and are not available in distant regions. As a result, many infected people often remain undiagnosed until it is too late, as the two available chemotherapies show diminished efficacy in the advanced chronic stage. Easy-to-use rapid diagnostic tests have been developed to be implemented in remote areas as an alternative to conventional tests. They do not need electricity, nor cold chain, they can return results within an hour and some even work with whole blood as sample, like Chagas Stat-Pak (ChemBio Inc.) and Chagas Detect Plus (InBIOS Inc.). Nonetheless, in order to qualify a rapidly diagnosed positive patient for treatment, conventional serological confirmation is obligatory, which might risk its start. In this study two rapid tests based on distinct antigen sets were used in parallel as a way to obtain a fast and conclusive Chagas disease diagnosis using whole blood samples. Chagas Stat-Pak and Chagas Detect Plus were validated by comparison with three conventional tests yielding 100% sensitivity and 99.3% specificity over 342 patients seeking Chagas disease diagnosis in a reference centre in Sucre (Bolivia). Combined used of RDTs in distant regions could substitute laborious conventional serology, allowing immediate treatment and favouring better adhesion to it.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Tests, RoutineAdolescentAdultAntibodies, ProtozoanBiological AssayBoliviaChagas DiseaseChildChild, PreschoolEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayFemaleHemagglutination TestsHumansInfantMaleMiddle AgedAntibodies, Protozoan

Identifiers

PMID28369081
PMCPMC5391121

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.