Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28388625›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2017

Poor performance of the rapid test for human brucellosis in health facilities in Kenya.

William A de Glanville, Raquel Conde-Álvarez, Ignacio Moriyón, John Njeru, Ramón Díaz, Elizabeth A J Cook, Matilda Morin, Barend M de C Bronsvoort, Lian F Thomas, Samuel Kariuki and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
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 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

11 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.

William A de GlanvilleCentre for Immunity, Infection and Evolution, Institute for Immunology and Infection Research, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2474-0356
Raquel Conde-ÁlvarezInstitute for Tropical Health, Navarra Institute for Sanitary Research and Department of Microbiology and Parasitology, Medical School, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Ignacio MoriyónInstitute for Tropical Health, Navarra Institute for Sanitary Research and Department of Microbiology and Parasitology, Medical School, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
John NjeruCentre for Microbiology Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.
Ramón DíazInstitute for Tropical Health, Navarra Institute for Sanitary Research and Department of Microbiology and Parasitology, Medical School, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Elizabeth A J CookCentre for Immunity, Infection and Evolution, Institute for Immunology and Infection Research, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Matilda MorinDepartment of Medical Biochemistry and Microbiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Barend M de C BronsvoortEpidemiology, Economics and Risk Assessment Group, The Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Lian F ThomasCentre for Immunity, Infection and Evolution, Institute for Immunology and Infection Research, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Samuel KariukiCentre for Microbiology Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.
Eric M FèvreInternational Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.
Centre for Immunity, Infection and Evolution · GBUniversidad de Navarra · ESFriedrich-Loeffler-Institut · DEKenya Medical Research Institute · KERoslin Institute · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GBUppsala University · SE

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/L018926/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/L019019/1Medical Research CouncilWellcome Trust 085308
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human brucellosis is considered to be an important but typically under-diagnosed cause of febrile illness in many low and middle-income countries. In Kenya, and throughout East Africa, laboratory diagnosis for the disease is based primarily on the febrile antigen Brucella agglutination test (FBAT), yet few studies of the diagnostic accuracy of this test exist. Assessment of the performance of the FBAT is essential for its appropriate clinical use, as well as for evaluating surveillance data reported by public health systems. To assess FBAT performance, we collected sera from people with symptoms compatible with brucellosis attending two health facilities in Busia County, Kenya. Sera were tested using the FBAT and results compared with those from the Rose Bengal Test (RBT), an assay with well-known performance characteristics. Positives on either test were confirmed using the classical serum agglutination test (SAT)-Coombs test combination and a rapid IgM/IgG lateral flow immunochromatography assay (LFA). A questionnaire focussing on known risk factors for exposure to Brucella spp. was also conducted, and relationships with FBAT positivity examined using logistic regression. Out of 825 recruited individuals, 162 (19.6%) were classified as positive using the FBAT. In contrast, only eight (1.0%) were positive using the RBT. Of the 162 FBAT positives, one (0.62%) had an atypical agglutination in SAT and three (1.9%) showed low Coombs titres. Out of 148 FBAT positive individuals tested using the LFA, five (3.4%) were IgM positive and none were IgG positive. Poor or no correlation was observed between FBAT results and most established risk factors for Brucella infection. We observed substantial disagreement between the FBAT and a number of well-known serological tests, with the majority of reactive FBAT results appearing to be false positives. Poor FBAT specificity, combined with a lack of confirmatory testing, strongly suggests overdiagnosis of brucellosis is common in this low prevalence setting. This is expected to have important economic impacts on affected patients subjected to the long and likely unnecessary courses of multiple antibiotics required for treatment of the disease.

Indexed as

False Positive ReactionsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBrucellosisChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHealth FacilitiesHumansKenyaMaleMiddle AgedSerologic TestsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID28388625
PMCPMC5413359
OpenAlexW2605291209

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.