Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28404673›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical microbiology2017

Update on Malaria Diagnostics and Test Utilization.

Blaine A Mathison, Bobbi S Pritt

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
14.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

81 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 214 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. An Increase in ImportedOpen forum infectious diseases · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article

21 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Blaine A MathisonParasitology and Fecal Testing Laboratory, Infectious Disease Division, ARUP Laboratories, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Bobbi S PrittDivision of Clinical Microbiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA pritt.bobbi@mayo.edu.
ARUP Laboratories (United States) · USMayo Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Malaria is a potentially life-threatening disease requiring rapid diagnosis and treatment. Although microscopic examination of thick and thin blood films remains the gold standard for laboratory diagnosis, rapid antigen tests and nucleic acid amplification methods may also play a useful role in detection of acute infection. This review discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the commonly used diagnostic methods and provides important practice points for optimal malaria test utilization.

Indexed as

Chromatography, AffinityDiagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansMalariaMicroscopyNucleic Acid Amplification Techniquesdiagnosticsmalariautilization

Identifiers

PMID28404673
PMCPMC5483902
OpenAlexW2605639618

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.