ArticleRevista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical2020
The use of the circulating cathodic antigen (CCA) urine cassette assay for the diagnosis and assessment of cure of Schistosoma mansoni infections in an endemic area of the Amazon region.
Article in Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy of diagnostic strategies for detecting Schistosoma mansoni infection in Brazil: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical · 2026Pooled it
- Accuracy and precision of dried urine spot method for the detection of Schistosoma mansoni circulating cathodic antigens in resource-limited settings.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2024Article
- Article
- Reliability of point-of-care circulating cathodic antigen assay for diagnosing schistosomiasis mansoni in urine samples from an endemic area of Brazil after one year of storage at -20 degrees Celsius.Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSchistosomiasis is a poverty-related disease that affects people in 78 countries worldwide. This study aimed to evaluate the point-of-care circulating cathodic antigen (POC-CCA) test performance using sensitive parasitological methods as a reference standard (RS) in individuals before and after treatment.
methodsThe RS was established by combining the results of 16 Kato-Katz slides and the Helmintex® method. Positivity rates of the POC-CCA test and Kato-Katz and Helmintex® methods were calculated before treatment and 30 days afterward. Furthermore, the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and kappa coefficient before treatment were determined by comparing the methods. The cure rate was defined 30 days after treatment.
resultsAmong the 217 participants, the RS detected a total of 63 (29.0%) positive individuals. The POC-CCA test identified 79 (36.4%) infections. The evaluation of POC-CCA test performance in relation to the RS revealed a sensitivity of 61.9%, specificity of 74.0%, accuracy of 70.5%, and kappa coefficient of 0.33. Out of the 53 remaining participants after treatment, a total of 45 (81.1%) showed egg negative results, and 8 (18.9%) were egg positive according to the RS. A total of 5 (9.4%) egg-positive and 37 (69.8%) egg-negative individuals were positive by the POC-CCA test.
conclusionsOur data show that the POC-CCA test has potential as an auxiliary tool for the diagnosis of Schistosoma mansoni infection, yielding better results than 16 Kato-Katz slides from three different stool samples. However, the immunochromatographic test lacks sufficient specificity and sensitivity for verifying the cure rate after treatment.
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.