Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30165849›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2018

Implementation of a malaria rapid diagnostic test in a rural setting of Nanoro, Burkina Faso: from expectation to reality.

Francois Kiemde, Marc Christian Tahita, Massa Dit Achille Bonko, Petra F Mens, Halidou Tinto, Michael Boele van Hensbroek, Henk D F H Schallig

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Malaria journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Diagnostic Performance ofTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Francois KiemdeInstitut de Recherche en Science de la Sante-Unité de Recherche Clinique de Nanoro, Nanoro, Burkina Faso. kiemdefrancois@yahoo.fr.
Marc Christian TahitaInstitut de Recherche en Science de la Sante-Unité de Recherche Clinique de Nanoro, Nanoro, Burkina Faso.
Massa Dit Achille BonkoInstitut de Recherche en Science de la Sante-Unité de Recherche Clinique de Nanoro, Nanoro, Burkina Faso.
Petra F MensParasitology Unit, Department of Medical Microbiology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Halidou TintoInstitut de Recherche en Science de la Sante-Unité de Recherche Clinique de Nanoro, Nanoro, Burkina Faso.
Michael Boele van HensbroekGlobal Child Health Group, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Henk D F H SchalligParasitology Unit, Department of Medical Microbiology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Academic Medical Center · NLInstitut de Recherche en Sciences de la Santé · BFUniversity of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) project 205300005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMalaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are nowadays widely used in malaria endemic countries as an alternative to microscopy for the diagnosis of malaria. However, quality control of test performance and execution in the field are important in order to ensure proper use and adequate diagnosis of malaria. The current study compared the performance of a histidine-rich protein 2-based RDT used at peripheral health facilities level in real life conditions with that performed at central reference laboratory level with strict adherence to manufacturer instructions.

methodsFebrile children attending rural health clinics were tested for malaria with a RDT provided by the Ministry of Health of Burkina Faso as recommended by the National Malaria Control Programme. In addition, a blood sample was collected in an EDTA tube from all study cases for retesting with the same brand of RDT following the manufacturer's instructions with expert malaria microscopy as gold standard at the central reference laboratory. Fisher exact test was used to compare the proportions by estimating the p-value (p ≤ 0.05) as statistically significant.

resultsIn total, 407 febrile children were included in the study and malaria was diagnosed in 59.9% (244/407) of the cases with expert malaria microscopy. The sensitivity of malaria RDT testing performed at health facilities was 97.5% and comparable to that achieved at the laboratory (98.8%). The number of malaria false negatives was not statistically significant between the two groups (p = 0.5209). However, the malaria RDT testing performed at health facilities had a specificity issue (52.8%) and was much lower compared to RDT testing performed at laboratory (74.2%). The number of malaria false positives was statistically significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.0005).

conclusionMalaria RDT testing performed at the participating rural health facilities resulted in more malaria false positives compared to those performed at central laboratory. Several factors, including storage and transportation conditions but also training of health workers, are most likely to influence test performance. Therefore, it is very important to have appropriate quality control and training programmes in place to ensure correct performance of RDT testing.

Indexed as

Burkina FasoChild, PreschoolDiagnostic Tests, RoutineFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMalaria, FalciparumMaleRural PopulationSensitivity and SpecificityHRP-2MalariaMicroscopyRDTSensitivity and specificity

Identifiers

PMID30165849
PMCPMC6117982
OpenAlexW2889425280

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.