ArticleJournal of tropical medicine2020
Performance Evaluation of Malaria Pf/Pv Combo Test Kit at Highly Malaria-Endemic Area, Southern Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Journal of tropical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of rapid diagnostic tests, microscopy, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) and PCR for malaria diagnosis in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Malaria journal · 2021Pooled it
- Field evaluation of the novel One Step Malaria Pf and Pf/Pv rapid diagnostic tests and the proportion of HRP-2 gene deletion identified on samples collected in the Pwani region, Tanzania.Bulletin of the National Research Centre · 2023Article
- Diagnostic performance of PfHRP2/pLDH malaria rapid diagnostic tests in elimination setting, northwest Ethiopia.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Investigation of Plasmodium falciparum pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 gene deletions and performance of a rapid diagnostic test for identifying asymptomatic malaria infection in northern Ethiopia, 2015.Malaria journal · 2022Article
- Article
- 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMalaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are alternative diagnostic methods that have enabled reliable biological diagnostic testing in all situations where previously only clinical diagnosis was available. Varying diagnostic accuracy of malaria RDTs makes policymakers confused while choosing malaria test kits for their country.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of currently being used malaria RDT in Southern Ethiopia.
methodsA cross-sectional study design was conducted from October 1 to December 15, 2016. A total of 160 patients were included in the study. Finger-prick blood sample was obtained from study subjects for the RDT test and microscopic examination. Collected data were entered and analyzed using SPSS version 20.0.
resultThe test kit evaluated had an overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 97.44%, 93.67%, 93.83%, and 97.37%, respectively, to detect the presence or absence of malaria. Sensitivity and specificity of the kit for
conclusionThe overall performance of the kit was below the WHO standard. Further study on a large sample size is recommended to be carried out in the study area to use the test kit instead of microscopy for malaria diagnosis. Providing training on quality malaria laboratory diagnosis and availing necessary supplies for malaria diagnosis shall also be considered.
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.