Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32660630›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2020

Keep the quality high: the benefits of lot testing for the quality control of malaria rapid diagnostic tests.

Sandra Incardona, David Bell, Ana Campillo, Jane Cunningham, Frederic Ariey, Thierry Fandeur, Jennifer Luchavez, Christian Anthony Luna, Didier Ménard, Sina Nhem and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Malaria journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Benefits of Lot Testing to Improve the Quality of Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Tests in India.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

15 authors.

Sandra IncardonaFIND, Geneva, Switzerland. sandra.incardona@finddx.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4994-1736
David BellIndependent consultant, Issaquah, WA, USA.
Ana CampilloFIND, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jane CunninghamWorld Health Organization/Global Malaria Programme (WHO/GMP), Geneva, Switzerland.
Frederic ArieyHôpital Cochin, Laboratoire de Parasitologie-Mycologie, INSERM U1016 (Institut Cochin), Université de Paris, Paris, France.
Thierry FandeurDirection Internationale, Institut Pasteur de Paris, Paris, France.
Jennifer LuchavezParasitology Department, Research Institute for Tropical Medicine, Muntinlupa, Philippines.
Christian Anthony LunaParasitology Department, Research Institute for Tropical Medicine, Muntinlupa, Philippines.
Didier MénardMalaria Genetics and Resistance Unit, Parasites and Insect Vectors Department, Institut Pasteur, Paris, France.
Sina NhemNational Center for Entomology, Parasitology and Malaria Control, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Johanna Beulah SornilloEpidemiology and Biostatistics Department, Research Institute for Tropical Medicine, Muntinlupa, Philippines.
Benoit WitkowskiLaboratoire d'Epidémiologie Moléculaire du Paludisme, Institut Pasteur du Cambodge, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Zachary KatzFIND, Geneva, Switzerland.
Sabine DittrichFIND, Geneva, Switzerland.
Xavier C DingFIND, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe production and use of malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) has risen dramatically over the past 20 years. In view of weak or non-existing in vitro diagnostics (IVD) regulations and post-marketing surveillance (PMS) systems in malaria endemic countries, the World Health Organization, later joined by the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, established an independent, centralized performance evaluation and Lot Testing (LT) programme to safeguard against poor quality of RDTs being distributed through the public health sector of malaria endemic countries. RDT performances and manufacturer quality management systems have evolved over the past decade raising questions about the future need for a centralized LT programme.

resultsBetween 2007 and 2017, 6056 lots have been evaluated, representing approximately 1.6 Billion RDTs. A total of 69 lots (1.1%) failed the quality control. Of these failures, 26 were detected at receipt of the RDT lot in the LT laboratory, representing an estimated 7.9 million poor quality RDTs, and LT requesters were advised that RDTs were not of sufficient quality for use in patient management. Forty-three were detected after long-term storage in the laboratory, of which 24 (56%) were found to be due to a major issue with insufficient buffer volume in single use buffer vials, others predominantly showing loss of sensitivity. The annual cost of running the programme, based on expenses recorded in years 2014-2016, an estimated volume of 700 lots per year and including replenishment of quality control samples, was estimated at US$ 178,500 ($US 255 per lot tested).

conclusionsDespite the clear benefits of the centralized LT programme and its low cost compared with the potential costs of each country establishing its own PMS system for RDTs, funding concerns have made its future beyond 2020 uncertain. In order to manage the risks of misdiagnosis due to low quality RDTs, and to ensure the continued safety and reliability of malaria case management, there is a need to ensure that an effective and implementable approach to RDT quality control continues to be available to programmes in endemic countries.

Indexed as

Quality ControlDiagnostic Tests, RoutineMalariaReproducibility of ResultsDiagnosticsLot testingMalariaPost-market surveillanceQuality controlRapid diagnostic test

Identifiers

PMID32660630
PMCPMC7359453

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.