ArticleAfrican journal of laboratory medicine2018
Evaluation of standard diagnostic rapid test kits for malaria diagnosis among HIV patients in Kano, Nigeria.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMalaria diagnosis among HIV-positive patients is uncommon in Nigeria despite the high burden of both diseases.
objectivesWe evaluated the performance of a malaria rapid diagnostic test (MRDT) against blood smear microscopy (BSM) among HIV-positive patients in relation to anti-retroviral treatment (ART) status, CD4+ count, fever, cotrimoxazole prophylaxis and malaria density count.
methodA cross-sectional study involving 1521 consenting randomly selected HIV-positive adults attending two ART clinics in Kano, Nigeria, between June 2015 and May 2016. Venous blood samples were collected for testing with MRDT, BSM, and CD4+ T cells count by cytometry. Biodata and other clinical details were extracted from patient folders into an Excel file, cleaned, validated, and exported for analysis into SPSS version 23.0. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values of MRDT were compared with BSM with a 95% confidence interval.
resultsMalaria parasites were detected in 25.4% of enrollees by BSM and 16.4% by MRDT. Overall sensitivity of MRDT was 58% and specificity was 97%. Cotrimoxazole prophylaxis and fever status did not affect MRDT sensitivity and specificity. Unexpectedly, the sensitivity was highest at parasite density count of less than 500 cells/µL. At CD4+ T cells count over 500 cells/µL the sensitivity was higher (62.4%) compared to 56% at less than 500 cells/µL. In the non-ART group sensitivity was higher (65%) compared to those on ART (56%) but the specificity was similar. All differences were significant for all variables (
conclusionAlthough the MRDT specificity was good, the sensitivity was poor, requiring further evaluation for use in malaria diagnosis among HIV-malaria co-infected persons in these settings.
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.