Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32887642›Full record

Trial reportInfectious diseases of poverty2020

Performance of a real-time PCR approach for diagnosing Schistosoma haematobium infections of different intensity in urine samples from Zanzibar.

Dominique Keller, Julian Rothen, Jean-Pierre Dangy, Corina Saner, Claudia Daubenberger, Fiona Allan, Shaali M Ame, Said M Ali, Fatma Kabole, Jan Hattendorf and 3 more

Abstract readClinical TrialComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Infectious diseases of poverty, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Accuracy of Diagnostic Tests for DetectingBioMed research international · 2023
    Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

13 authors.

Dominique KellerBiolytix AG, Benkenstrasse 254, 4108, Witterswil, Switzerland.
Julian RothenSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Socinstrasse 57, 4002, Basel, Switzerland.
Jean-Pierre DangySwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Socinstrasse 57, 4002, Basel, Switzerland.
Corina SanerBiolytix AG, Benkenstrasse 254, 4108, Witterswil, Switzerland.
Claudia DaubenbergerSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Socinstrasse 57, 4002, Basel, Switzerland.
Fiona AllanWolfson Wellcome Biomedical Laboratories, Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, UK.
Shaali M AmePublic Health Laboratory Ivo de Carneri, P.O. Box 122, Chake-Chake, Pemba, United Republic of Tanzania.
Said M AliPublic Health Laboratory Ivo de Carneri, P.O. Box 122, Chake-Chake, Pemba, United Republic of Tanzania.
Fatma KaboleNeglected Diseases Programme, Ministry of Health, P.O. Box 236, Zanzibar Town, Unguja, United Republic of Tanzania.
Jan HattendorfSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Socinstrasse 57, 4002, Basel, Switzerland.
David RollinsonWolfson Wellcome Biomedical Laboratories, Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, UK.
Ralf SeyfarthBiolytix AG, Benkenstrasse 254, 4108, Witterswil, Switzerland.
Stefanie KnoppSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Socinstrasse 57, 4002, Basel, Switzerland. s.knopp@swisstph.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5707-7963

Funding

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation OPP1191423Innosuisse - Schweizerische Agentur für Innovationsförderung 18553.2 PFLS-LSUniversity of Georgia Research Foundation RR374-053/4893196University of Georgia Research Foundation RR374-053/4893206Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust SCAN Project 104958/Z/14/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEfforts to control and eliminate schistosomiasis have accelerated over the past decade. As parasite burden, associated morbidity and egg excretion decrease, diagnosis with standard parasitological methods becomes harder. We assessed the robustness and performance of a real-time PCR (qPCR) approach in comparison with urine filtration microscopy and reagent strip testing for the diagnosis of Schistosoma haematobium infections of different intensities.

methodsThe robustness of DNA isolation and qPCR was validated in eight laboratories from Europe and Africa. Subsequently, 792 urine samples collected during cross-sectional surveys of the Zanzibar Elimination of Schistosomiasis Transmission (ZEST) project in 2012-2017 were examined with qPCR in 2018. Diagnostic sensitivity of the qPCR was calculated at different infection intensity categories, using urine filtration microscopy as reference test. Spearman's rank correlation between Ct-values and S. haematobium egg counts was assessed and Ct-value percentiles for infection intensity categories determined.

resultsS. haematobium Dra1 DNA-positive samples were identified correctly in all eight laboratories. Examination of urine samples from Zanzibar revealed Dra1 DNA in 26.8% (212/792) by qPCR, S. haematobium eggs in 13.3% (105/792) by urine filtration, and microhaematuria in 13.8% (109/792) by reagent strips. Sensitivity of the qPCR increased with augmenting egg counts: 80.6% (29/36) for counts between 1 and 4 eggs, 83.3% (15/18) for counts between 5 and 9 eggs, 100% (23/23) for counts between 10 and 49 eggs, and 96.4% (27/28) for counts of 50+ eggs. There was a significant negative correlation between Ct-values and egg counts (Spearman's rho = - 0.49, P < 0.001). Seventy-five percent of the Ct-values were ≥ 33 in the egg-negative category, < 31 in the light intensity category, and < 24 in the heavy intensity category.

conclusionsWhile the sensitivity of the qPCR was ~ 80% for very light intensity infections (egg counts < 10), in general, the Dra1 based qPCR assay detected twice as many S. haematobium infections compared with classical parasitological tests. The qPCR is hence a sensitive, urine-based approach for S. haematobium diagnosis that can be used for impact assessment of schistosomiasis elimination programmes, individual diagnosis, and in improved format also for verification and certification of elimination.

trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN48837681 . Registered 05 September 2012 - Retrospectively registered.

Indexed as

AnimalsCross-Sectional StudiesDNA, HelminthEuropeFemaleHumansMaleParasite Egg CountReagent StripsReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionSchistosoma haematobiumSchistosomiasis haematobiaSensitivity and SpecificitySpecimen HandlingTanzaniaDNA, HelminthReagent StripsControlDiagnosisDra 1EliminationMicrohaematuriaReal-time PCRSchistosoma haematobiumSurveillanceUrine filtrationZanzibar

Identifiers

PMID32887642
PMCPMC7487541

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.