ArticleAfrican journal of laboratory medicine2018
District and sub-district analysis of cryptococcal antigenaemia prevalence and specimen positivity in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
Article in African journal of laboratory medicine, 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cryptococcal Antigenemia in South African Children Living With HIV.The Pediatric infectious disease journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Retrospective Assessment of a National Reflex Cryptococcal Antigen Screening Program in South Africa Through Interlaboratory Comparison of Lateral Flow Assay Results.Laboratory medicine · 2022Article
- Newly implemented community CD4 service in Tshwaragano, Northern Cape province, South Africa, positively impacts result turn-around time.African journal of laboratory medicine · 2022Article
- Prevalence of Cryptococcal Antigen and Outcomes in People With Human Immunodeficiency Virus in Honduras: A Cohort Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCryptococcal meningitis (CM) is a leading cause of mortality among HIV-positive South Africans. Reflex cryptococcal antigen (CrAg) testing of remnant plasma was offered as a pilot prior to implementation in October 2016 in KwaZulu-Natal province. The national reflex CrAg positivity was 5.4% compared to 7.3% for KwaZulu-Natal.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to interrogate CrAg positivity by health levels to identify hotspots.
methodData for the period October 2016 to June 2017 were analysed. Health district CrAg positivity and prevalence were calculated, with the latter using de-duplicated patient data. The district CrAg positivity and the number of CrAg-positive specimens per health facility were mapped using ArcGIS. For districts with the highest CrAg positivity, a sub-district CrAg positivity analysis was conducted.
resultsThe provincial CrAg positivity was 7.6%. District CrAg positivity ranged from 5.7% (Ugu) to 9.6% (Umkhanyakude) with prevalence ranging from 5.5% (Ugu) to 9.7% (Umkhanyakude). The highest CrAg positivity was reported for the Umkhanyakude (9.6%) and King Cetswayo (9.5%) districts. In these two districts, CrAg positivity of 10% was noted in the Umhlabuyalingana (10.0%), Jozini (10.2%), uMhlathuze (10.5%) and Nkandla (10.8%) subdistricts. In these subdistricts, 135 CrAg-positive samples were reported for the Ngwelezane hospital followed by 41 and 43 at the Hlabisa and Manguzi hospitals respectively.
conclusionCryptococcal antigen positivity was not uniformly distributed at either the district or sub-district levels, with identified facility hotspots in the Umkhanyakude and King Cetswayo districts. This study demonstrates the value of laboratory data to identify hotspots for planning programmatic interventions.
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.