Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32330127›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2020

Comparison of multi-parallel qPCR and double-slide Kato-Katz for detection of soil-transmitted helminth infection among children in rural Bangladesh.

Jade Benjamin-Chung, Nils Pilotte, Ayse Ercumen, Jessica R Grant, Jacqueline R M A Maasch, Andrew M Gonzalez, Ashanta C Ester, Benjamin F Arnold, Mahbubur Rahman, Rashidul Haque and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.5field-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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. A Paired-Marker Framework for Interpreting Anti-Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Jade Benjamin-ChungDivision of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3631-3132
Nils PilotteDepartment of Biological Sciences, Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Ayse ErcumenDivision of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States of America.
Jessica R GrantDepartment of Biological Sciences, Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Jacqueline R M A MaaschDepartment of Biological Sciences, Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0432-3547
Andrew M GonzalezDepartment of Biological Sciences, Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8142-1082
Ashanta C EsterDepartment of Biological Sciences, Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Benjamin F ArnoldDivision of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6105-7295
Mahbubur RahmanInfectious Disease Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Rashidul HaqueInfectious Disease Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Alan E HubbardDivision of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States of America.
Stephen P LubyInfectious Diseases & Geographic Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.
Steven A WilliamsDepartment of Biological Sciences, Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts, United States of America.
John M ColfordDivision of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States of America.
Smith College · USUniversity of California, Berkeley · USInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research · BDNorth Carolina State University · USStanford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is growing interest in local elimination of soil-transmitted helminth (STH) infection in endemic settings. In such settings, highly sensitive diagnostics are needed to detect STH infection. We compared double-slide Kato-Katz, the most commonly used copromicroscopic detection method, to multi-parallel quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) in 2,799 stool samples from children aged 2-12 years in a setting in rural Bangladesh with predominantly low STH infection intensity. We estimated the sensitivity and specificity of each diagnostic using Bayesian latent class analysis. Compared to double-slide Kato-Katz, STH prevalence using qPCR was almost 3-fold higher for hookworm species and nearly 2-fold higher for Trichuris trichiura. Ascaris lumbricoides prevalence was lower using qPCR, and 26% of samples classified as A. lumbricoides positive by Kato-Katz were negative by qPCR. Amplicon sequencing of the 18S rDNA from 10 samples confirmed that A. lumbricoides was absent in samples classified as positive by Kato-Katz and negative by qPCR. The sensitivity of Kato-Katz was 49% for A. lumbricoides, 32% for hookworm, and 52% for T. trichiura; the sensitivity of qPCR was 79% for A. lumbricoides, 93% for hookworm, and 90% for T. trichiura. Specificity was ≥ 97% for both tests for all STH except for Kato-Katz for A. lumbricoides (specificity = 68%). There were moderate negative, monotonic correlations between qPCR cycle quantification values and eggs per gram quantified by Kato-Katz. While it is widely assumed that double-slide Kato-Katz has few false positives, our results indicate otherwise and highlight inherent limitations of the Kato-Katz technique. qPCR had higher sensitivity than Kato-Katz in this low intensity infection setting.

Indexed as

AncylostomatoideaAnimalsAscaris lumbricoidesBangladeshChildChild, PreschoolDNA, HelminthDNA, RibosomalFecesFemaleHelminthiasisHumansInfantIntestinal Diseases, ParasiticMaleMicrobiological TechniquesDNA, HelminthDNA, RibosomalRNA, Ribosomal, 18S

Identifiers

PMID32330127
PMCPMC7202662
OpenAlexW2943883832

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.