ArticleBMC infectious diseases2018
Evaluation of fluorescent in-situ hybridization technique for diagnosis of malaria in Ahero Sub-County hospital, Kenya.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Detection method for reverse transcription recombinase-aided amplification of avian influenza virus subtypes H5, H7, and H9.BMC veterinary research · 2024Article
- Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH) Tests for Identifying Protozoan and Bacterial Pathogens in Infectious Diseases.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Antigen-capture ELISA and immunochromatographic test strip to detect the H9N2 subtype avian influenza virus rapidly based on monoclonal antibodies.Virology journal · 2021Article
- Diagnosing human cutaneous leishmaniasis using fluorescencePathogens and global health · 2021Article
- Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Tests: Literary Review and Recommendation for a Quality Assurance, Quality Control Algorithm.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMalaria is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Treatment of malaria in a timely manner could avert deaths. Treatment ultimately relies on the rapid and accurate diagnosis. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), a cytogenetic technique based on detection of specific nucleic acid, has the potential to address the limitations of the current diagnostic approaches. This study investigates further the performance of FISH for the diagnosis of malaria in a rural setting in Western Kenya.
methodsBlood samples from 302 patients presenting with fever (temperature ≥ 37.5 °C) were examined for malaria using the Giemsa microscopy (GM), rapid diagnostic test (RDT), polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and FISH.
resultsThe sensitivity and specificity of FISH was 85.6% and 96.2% respectively, while the corresponding values for GM were 82.2% and 100% respectively. RDT and PCR had sensitivities of 91.1% and 98.9%, respectively with their specificities being 89.6 and 100%, respectively. The positive predictive values for RDT, GM, FISH and PCR were 78.8%, 100%, 90.6% and 100%, respectively. The negative predictive values for RDT, GM, FISH and PCR were 96.0%, 93.0%, 94.0% and 99.5%, respectively. Their respective diagnostic accuracies were 90.1%, 94.7% 93.0% and 99.7%.
conclusionThe present study demonstrates that the specificity and reproducibility of FISH assays are high, thus adding to the growing evidence on the potential of the technique as an effective tool for the detection of malaria parasites in remote 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.