ArticleBMJ open2018
Diagnostic study on an immunochromatographic rapid test for schistosomiasis: comparison between use on serum and on blood spot from fingerprick.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance (Sensitivity and Specificity) of a New Point-of-Care Immunochromatography to Screen for Imported Chronic Schistosomiasis Among Long-Term Sub-Saharan Migrants.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Schistosomiasis diagnosis: Challenges and opportunities for elimination.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2024Review
- Schistosomiasis screening in non-endemic countries from a cost perspective: Knowledge gaps and research priorities. The case of African long-term residents in a Metropolitan Area, Spain.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2023Article
- Performance of a rapid immuno-chromatographic test (Schistosoma ICT IgG-IgM) for detecting Schistosoma-specific antibodies in sera of endemic and non-endemic populations.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2022Article
- Schistosomiasis Among Female Migrants in Non-endemic Countries: Neglected Among the Neglected? A Pilot Study.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Diagnostic accuracy ofAdvances in laboratory medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn immunochromatographic rapid test (ICT; Schistosoma ICT IgG-IgM, LDBIO Diagnostics) demonstrated high sensitivity (96%) in the diagnosis of
objectiveThe aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the use of ICT on whole blood obtained from fingerprick.
settingCentre for Tropical Diseases (CTD), Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Negrar, Verona, Italy.
participantsThe inclusion criteria were African migrants aged ≥18 years with epidemiological risk of infection. The exclusion criteria were refusal to participate in the study and impossibility of execution of one of the two study methods, for any reason. Seventy of the 72 eligible patients completed the study, 79% of whom were male.
interventionsThe ICT was performed twice for each included patient: one on blood drop (by the research nurses, in the ward) and one on serum (by staff of CTD lab). The primary outcome was the concordance between the two methods, assessed by Cohen's kappa.
resultsCohen's kappa was 0.45 (95% CI 27.0 to 63.6), indicating moderate agreement between the ICT on serum and the ICT on blood drop. Assuming the results on serum as reference standard for diagnosis, the sensitivity and specificity of ICT on blood drop were 55% (95% CI 40 to 69) and 93% (95% CI 79 to 98), respectively.
conclusionsThe agreement between the two diagnostic methods is too low to support the alternative one. Implementation of the kit for using blood drop instead of the serum and/or further studies aimed to identify easy-to-use tests for schistosomiasis feasible outside referral centres for tropical diseases are needed.
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.