Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29590116›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2018

Prospective evaluation of a rapid diagnostic test for Trypanosoma brucei gambiense infection developed using recombinant antigens.

Crispin Lumbala, Sylvain Biéler, Simon Kayembe, Jacquies Makabuza, Stefano Ongarello, Joseph Mathu Ndung'u

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation StudyMulticenter 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 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Two-Year Follow-Up ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  16. Review
  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 3 countries.

Crispin LumbalaProgramme National de Lutte contre la Trypanosomiase Humaine Africaine, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Sylvain BiélerFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-6994-9853
Simon KayembeFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), Geneva, Switzerland.
Jacquies MakabuzaProgramme National de Lutte contre la Trypanosomiase Humaine Africaine, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Stefano OngarelloFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), Geneva, Switzerland.
Joseph Mathu Ndung'uFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), Geneva, Switzerland.
FIND · CHProgramme National Multisectoriel de Lutte contre le sida · CDUniversity of Antwerp · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiagnosis and treatment are central elements of strategies to control Trypanosoma brucei gambiense human African trypanosomiasis (HAT). Serological screening is a key entry point in diagnostic algorithms. The Card Agglutination Test for Trypanosomiasis (CATT) has been the most widely used screening test for decades, despite a number of practical limitations that were partially addressed by the introduction of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs). However, current RDTs are manufactured using native antigens, which are challenging to produce. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsThe objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a new RDT developed using recombinant antigens (SD BIOLINE HAT 2.0), in comparison with an RDT produced using native antigens (SD BIOLINE HAT) and CATT. A total of 57,632 individuals were screened in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, either passively at 10 health centres, or actively by 5 mobile teams, and 260 HAT cases were confirmed by parasitology. The highest sensitivity was achieved with the SD BIOLINE HAT 2.0 (71.2%), followed by CATT (62.5%) and the SD BIOLINE HAT (59.0%). The most specific test was CATT (99.2%), while the specificity of the SD BIOLINE HAT and SD BIOLINE HAT 2.0 were 98.9% and 98.1%, respectively. Sensitivity of the tests was lower than previously reported, as they identified cases from partially overlapping sub-populations. All three tests were significantly more sensitive in passive than in active screening. Combining two or three tests resulted in a markedly increased sensitivity: When the SD BIOLINE HAT was combined with the SD BIOLINE HAT 2.0, sensitivity reached 98.4% in passive and 83.0% in active screening. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The recombinant antigen-based RDT was more sensitive than, and as specific as, the SD BIOLINE HAT. It was as sensitive as, but slightly less specific than CATT. While the practicality and cost-effectiveness of algorithms including several screening tests would need to be investigated, using two or more tests appears to enhance sensitivity of diagnostic algorithms, although some decrease in specificity is observed as well.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAntibodies, ProtozoanAntigens, ProtozoanCost-Benefit AnalysisDemocratic Republic of the CongoHumansProspective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityTrypanosoma brucei gambienseTrypanosomiasis, AfricanAntibodies, ProtozoanAntigens, Protozoan

Identifiers

PMID29590116
PMCPMC5898764
OpenAlexW2794747700

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.