ArticlePloS one2017
Laboratory evaluation of immunochromatographic rapid diagnostic tests for cholera in Haiti.
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 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Estimating the proportion of clinically suspected cholera cases that are true Vibrio cholerae infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Cholera diagnosis in human stool and detection in water: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Assembly and performance of a cholera RDT prototype that detects bothJournal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Cholera rages in Africa and the Middle East: A narrative review on challenges and solutions.Health science reports · 2024Review
- Poor Sensitivity of Stool Culture Compared to Polymerase Chain Reaction in Surveillance forOpen forum infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Development of a simple, rapid, and sensitive molecular diagnostic assay for cholera.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2023Article
- Cholera Rapid Diagnostic Tests for the Detection ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Article
- Laboratory evaluation of the rapid diagnostic tests for the detection of Vibrio cholerae O1 using diarrheal samples.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2021Article
- Field Evaluation of Cholkit Rapid Diagnostic Test forOpen forum infectious diseases · 2020Article
- Sensitive and rapid detection of cholera toxin subunit B using magnetic frequency mixing detection.PloS one · 2019Article
- Two cases of cholera O1 in South Batinah, Oman, April 2019: lessons learned.Epidemiology and health · 2019Article
- A Metagenomic Approach to Evaluating Surface Water Quality in Haiti.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Article
- Cholera.Current epidemiology reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRapid diagnostic tests (RDT) for cholera are promising tools for detecting cholera in areas with limited laboratory infrastructure. However, evidence on the characteristics of the many available RDTs is scarce, and their use has been limited by suboptimal performance. We evaluated the performance characteristics of three cholera RDTs from Span Diagnostics, Artron Laboratories, and Standard Diagnostics in a regional laboratory in Haiti. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsWe retrospectively reviewed records from May 2014 to October 2015 of a laboratory-based surveillance program for Vibrio cholerae at Hôpital Saint-Nicolas in Saint-Marc, Haiti. We compared the results of 511 Crystal VC, 129 Artron and 451 SD Bioline RDTs to bacterial culture as the gold standard. Of 905 cultures, 477 (52.7%) were positive for V. cholerae O1, of which 27.7% were serotype Inaba. No cultures grew V. cholerae O139. Sensitivity and specificity of Crystal VC were 98.6% (95%CI: 96.5%-99.6%) and 71.1% (95%CI: 64.7%-76.9%), respectively. Artron demonstrated a sensitivity of 98.6% (95%CI: 92.7%-100%) and specificity of 69.1% (95%CI: 55.2%-80.9%). SD Bioline demonstrated a sensitivity of 81.1% (95%CI: 75.6%-85.8%) and specificity of 92.8% (95%CI: 88.4%-95.9%). Crystal VC and Artron frequently showed false positive O139 bands, whereas none were seen with SD Bioline. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: There is significant variation in the performance of different cholera diagnostic RDTs. Artron and Crystal VC RDTs have high sensitivity and low specificity, while SD Bioline RDT has low to moderate sensitivity and high specificity when performed by laboratory technicians in Haiti. Study limitations included its retrospective design. The suboptimal characteristics of these tests limit their use as clinical point-of-care tests; however, they may be useful in outbreak response, surveillance, and research in resource-limited settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.