Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28672036›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Performance of the SD BIOLINE® HAT rapid test in various diagnostic algorithms for gambiense human African trypanosomiasis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Crispin Lumbala, Paul R Bessell, Pascal Lutumba, Sylvain Baloji, Sylvain Biéler, Joseph M Ndung'u

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. NTD Diagnostics for Disease Elimination: A Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Crispin LumbalaPNLTHA, Bâtiment PNMLS, 1 Boulevard Triomphal, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Paul R BessellEpi Interventions Ltd, 32 Bell Place, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Pascal LutumbaFaculty of Medicine, University of Kinshasa, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Sylvain BalojiPNLTHA, Bâtiment PNMLS, 1 Boulevard Triomphal, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Sylvain BiélerFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), Campus Biotech, 9 Chemin des Mines, Geneva, Switzerland.
Joseph M Ndung'uFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), Campus Biotech, 9 Chemin des Mines, Geneva, Switzerland.
Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics · CHProgramme National Multisectoriel de Lutte contre le sida · CDNational Institute of Biomedical Research · CD

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We carried out a study to compare the performance, in terms of sensitivity and specificity, of the new SD BIOLINE® HAT rapid diagnostic test (RDT) with the card agglutination test for trypanosomiasis (CATT) for diagnosis of human African trypanosomiasis (HAT) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Participants were enrolled actively by four mobile teams, and passively at four health facilities in three provinces. Consenting participants were tested concurrently with the RDT and CATT on whole blood. Those found positive by either test were tested with CATT on serial dilutions of plasma, and with a parasitological composite reference standard (CRS). Cases were only the individuals found positive by the CRS, while controls were negative by both CATT and RDT, as well as those that were positive by CATT or RDT, but were negative by the CRS, and had no history of HAT. Over five months, 131 cases and 13,527 controls were enrolled. The sensitivity of the RDT was 92.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 86.1-95.5), which was significantly higher than CATT (sensitivity 69.1%; 95% CI = 60.7-76.4). The sensitivity of CATT on plasma at a dilution of 1:8 was 59.0% (95% CI = 50.2-67.2). The specificity of the RDT was 97.1% (95% CIs = 96.8-97.4) while that of CATT was 98.0% (95% CIs = 97.8, 98.2) and specificities of algorithms involving CATT at 1:8 dilution were 99.6% (95% CI = 99.5-99.7). Reproducibility of results was excellent. We concluded that an algorithm in which the SD BIOLINE® HAT RDT is used for screening is optimal for case detection in both passive and active screening settings. However, the lower specificity of the RDT compared to that of CATT would result in a larger number of false positive individuals undergoing confirmatory testing.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDemocratic Republic of the CongoHumansSensitivity and SpecificityTrypanosomiasis, African

Identifiers

PMID28672036
PMCPMC5495481
OpenAlexW2730989719

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.