Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29346366›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2018

Testing for soil-transmitted helminth transmission elimination: Analysing the impact of the sensitivity of different diagnostic tools.

Marleen Werkman, James E Wright, James E Truscott, Alice V Easton, Rita G Oliveira, Jaspreet Toor, Alison Ower, Kristjana H Ásbjörnsdóttir, Arianna R Means, Sam H Farrell and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Marleen WerkmanLondon Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research (LCNTDR), Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, St. Mary's Campus, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2252-9357
James E WrightLondon Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research (LCNTDR), Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, St. Mary's Campus, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
James E TruscottLondon Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research (LCNTDR), Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, St. Mary's Campus, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Alice V EastonHelminth Immunology Section, Laboratory of Parasitic Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda MD, United States of America.
Rita G OliveiraLondon Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research (LCNTDR), Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, St. Mary's Campus, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Jaspreet ToorLondon Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research (LCNTDR), Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, St. Mary's Campus, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Alison OwerLondon Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research (LCNTDR), Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, St. Mary's Campus, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Kristjana H ÁsbjörnsdóttirThe DeWorm3 Project, The Natural History Museum of London, London, United Kingdom.
Arianna R MeansThe DeWorm3 Project, The Natural History Museum of London, London, United Kingdom.
Sam H FarrellLondon Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research (LCNTDR), Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, St. Mary's Campus, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Judd L WalsonThe DeWorm3 Project, The Natural History Museum of London, London, United Kingdom.
Roy M AndersonLondon Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research (LCNTDR), Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, St. Mary's Campus, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Museum of London · GBLondon Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research · GBNational Institutes of Health · US

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R015600/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, an increased focus has been placed upon the possibility of the elimination of soil-transmitted helminth (STH) transmission using various interventions including mass drug administration. The primary diagnostic tool recommended by the WHO is the detection of STH eggs in stool using the Kato-Katz (KK) method. However, detecting infected individuals using this method becomes increasingly difficult as the intensity of infection decreases. Newer techniques, such as qPCR, have been shown to have greater sensitivity than KK, especially at low prevalence. However, the impact of using qPCR on elimination thresholds is yet to be investigated. In this paper, we aim to quantify how the sensitivity of these two diagnostic tools affects the optimal prevalence threshold at which to declare the interruption of transmission with a defined level of confidence. A stochastic, individual-based STH transmission model was used in this study to simulate the transmission dynamics of Ascaris and hookworm. Data from a Kenyan deworming study were used to parameterize the diagnostic model which was based on egg detection probabilities. The positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were calculated to assess the quality of any given threshold, with the optimal threshold value taken to be that at which both were maximised. The threshold prevalence of infection values for declaring elimination of Ascaris transmission were 6% and 12% for KK and qPCR respectively. For hookworm, these threshold values are lower at 0.5% and 2% respectively. Diagnostic tests with greater sensitivity are becoming increasingly important as we approach the elimination of STH transmission in some regions of the world. For declaring the elimination of transmission, using qPCR to diagnose STH infection results in the definition of a higher prevalence, than when KK is used.

Indexed as

Disease Transmission, InfectiousDiagnostic Tests, RoutineHelminthiasisHumansIntestinal Diseases, ParasiticKenyaMicroscopyPredictive Value of TestsReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID29346366
PMCPMC5773090
OpenAlexW2783816914

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.