Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28369268›Full record

ArticleClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2017

Limitations of Rapid Diagnostic Testing in Patients with Suspected Malaria: A Diagnostic Accuracy Evaluation from Swaziland, a Low-Endemicity Country Aiming for Malaria Elimination.

Nikhil Ranadive, Simon Kunene, Sarah Darteh, Nyasatu Ntshalintshali, Nomcebo Nhlabathi, Nomcebo Dlamini, Stanley Chitundu, Manik Saini, Maxwell Murphy, Adam Soble and 3 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Prevalence ofBulletin of the World Health Organization · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Detection ofASM case reports · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Nikhil RanadiveEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Simon KuneneNational Malaria Control Programme, Ministry of Health, Manzini, Swaziland.
Sarah DartehNational Malaria Control Programme, Ministry of Health, Manzini, Swaziland.
Nyasatu NtshalintshaliClinton Health Access Initiative, Mbabane, Swaziland.
Nomcebo NhlabathiNational Malaria Control Programme, Ministry of Health, Manzini, Swaziland.
Nomcebo DlaminiNational Malaria Control Programme, Ministry of Health, Manzini, Swaziland.
Stanley ChitunduNational Malaria Control Programme, Ministry of Health, Manzini, Swaziland.
Manik SainiClinton Health Access Initiative, Mbabane, Swaziland.
Maxwell MurphyDepartment of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Adam SobleClinton Health Access Initiative, Mbabane, Swaziland.
Alanna SchwartzDepartment of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Bryan GreenhouseDepartment of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Michelle S HsiangMalaria Elimination Initiative, Global Health Group, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The performance of Plasmodium falciparum-specific histidine-rich protein 2-based rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) to evaluate suspected malaria in low-endemicity settings has not been well characterized. Methods: Using dried blood spot samples from patients with suspected malaria at 37 health facilities from 2012 to 2014 in the low-endemicity country of Swaziland, we investigated the diagnostic accuracy of histidine-rich protein 2-based RDTs using qualitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (nested PCR targeting the cytochrome b gene) and quantitative PCR as reference standards. To explore reasons for false-negative and/or false-positive results, we used pfhrp2/3-specific PCR and logistic regression analyses of potentially associated epidemiological factors. Results: From 1353 patients, 93.0% of RDT-positive (n = 185) and 31.2% of RDT-negative samples (n = 340) were available and selected for testing. Compared with nested PCR, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of RDTs were 51.7%, 94.1%, 67.3%, and 89.1%, respectively. After exclusion of samples with parasite densities <100/μL, which accounted for 75.7% of false-negative results and 33.3% of PCR-detectable infections, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 78.8%, 93.7%, 62.3%, and 97.1%. Deletions of pfhrp2 were not detected. False-positivity was more likely during the second year and was not associated with demographics, recent malaria, health facility testing characteristics, or potential DNA degradation. Conclusions: In the low-transmission setting of Swaziland, we demonstrated low sensitivity of RDT for malaria diagnosis, owing to an unexpectedly high proportion of low-density infection among symptomatic subjects. The PPV was also low, requiring further investigation. A more accurate point-of-care diagnostic may be needed to support malaria elimination efforts.

Indexed as

Chromatography, AffinityDiagnostic Tests, RoutineEswatiniHumansMalaria, FalciparumPlasmodium falciparumPredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesSensitivity and Specificitydiagnostic accuracylow transmissionmalariaRapid Diagnostic Testsubpatent infection

Identifiers

PMID28369268
PMCPMC5399938

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.