ArticleInfectious disease reports2020
Performance comparison of two malaria rapid diagnostic test with real time polymerase chain reaction and gold standard of microscopy detection method.
Article in Infectious disease reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic challenges in malaria detection: A comparative diagnostic performance of HRP2-based rapid diagnostic tests, microscopy, and PCR at Bichena primary hospital, Northwest Ethiopia.Parasite epidemiology and control · 2026Article
- Advances in Malaria Diagnostic Methods in Resource-Limited Settings: A Systematic Review.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2024Review
- Impact of 1,7-malaria reactive community-based testing and response (1,7-mRCTR) approach on malaria prevalence in Tanzania.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2023Article
- Low frequency ofFrontiers in epidemiology · 2023Article
- Comparison of Rapid Diagnostic Test, Microscopy, and Polymerase Chain Reaction for the Detection ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Impact of Malaria Diagnostic Technologies on the Disease Burden in the Sub-Saharan Africa.Journal of tropical medicine · 2022Review
- Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Tests: Literary Review and Recommendation for a Quality Assurance, Quality Control Algorithm.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The diagnostic test for malaria is mostly based on Rapid Diagnostic Test (RDT) and detection by microscopy. Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is also a sensitive detection method that can be considered as a diagnostic tool. The outcome of malaria microscopy detection depends on the examiner's ability and experience. Some RDT has been distributed in Indonesia, which needs to be evaluated for their results. Objective: This study aimed to compare the performance of RightSign RDT and ScreenPlus RDT for detection of Methods: Blood specimens were evaluated using RightSign RDT, ScreenPlus RDT, Microscopy detection, and RT-PCR as the protocol described. The differences on specificity (Sp), sensitivity (Sn), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were analyzed using McNemar and Kruskal Wallis analysis. Results: A total of 105 subjects were recruited. Based on microscopy test, RightSign RDT had sensitivity, Specificity, PPV, NPV, 100%, 98%, 98.2%, 100%, respectively. ScreenPlus showed 100% sensitivity, 98% specificity, 98.2% PPV, 100% NPV. The sensitivity of both RDTs became lower (75%) and the specificity higher (100 %) when using real-time PCR. Both RDTs showed a 100% agreement. RTPCR detected higher mix infection when compared to microscopy and RDTs. Conclusion: RightSign and ScreenPlus RDT have excellent performance when using microscopy detection as a gold standard. Real-time PCR method can be considered as a confirmation tool for malaria diagnosis.
Indexed as
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.