Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33151941›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2020

Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of lateral flow devices as a tool to diagnose rabies in post-mortem animals.

Kazunori Kimitsuki, Nobuo Saito, Kentaro Yamada, Chun-Ho Park, Satoshi Inoue, Motoi Suzuki, Mariko Saito-Obata, Yasuhiko Kamiya, Daria L Manalo, Catalino S Demetria and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. United Against Rabies Forum: The first 2 years.Frontiers in public health · 2023
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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 at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Kazunori KimitsukiDepartment of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Oita University, Yufu, Oita, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-7203-0466
Nobuo SaitoDepartment of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Oita University, Yufu, Oita, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-4396-5000
Kentaro YamadaLaboratory of Veterinary Public Health, Department of Veterinary Medical Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Miyazaki, Miyazaki, Miyazaki, Japan.
Chun-Ho ParkDepartment of Veterinary Pathology, School of Veterinary Medicine, Kitasato University, Towada, Aomori, Japan.
Satoshi InoueNational Institute of Infectious Disease, Tokyo, Japan.
Motoi SuzukiNational Institute of Infectious Disease, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-8340-0880
Mariko Saito-ObataTohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan.
Yasuhiko KamiyaSchool of Tropical Medicine & Global Health, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Nagasaki, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-7190-1082
Daria L ManaloResearch Institute for Tropical Medicine, Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila, Philippines.
Catalino S DemetriaResearch Institute for Tropical Medicine, Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila, Philippines.ORCID 0000-0002-9212-1429
Milagros R MananggitRegional Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory, Department of Agriculture Field Office III, San Fernando, Pampanga, Philippines.
Beatriz P QuiambaoResearch Institute for Tropical Medicine, Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila, Philippines.ORCID 0000-0003-2916-3199
Akira NishizonoDepartment of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Oita University, Yufu, Oita, Japan.
Oita University · JPResearch Institute for Tropical Medicine · PHNational Institute of Infectious Diseases · JPKitasato University · JPNagasaki University · JPTohoku University · JPUniversity of Miyazaki · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Implementation of lateral flow devices (LFDs) for rabies antigen detection is expected to improve surveillance through the efficient detection of rabid animals in resource-limited settings; however, the use of LFDs for diagnosis remains controversial because some commercially available kits show low sensitivity. Therefore, we compared the diagnostic efficacy of three LFDs (ADTEC, Bionote, and Elabscience kits) paralleled with the direct fluorescent antibody test (dFAT) using fresh samples and investigated the diagnostic accuracies. To do so, we evaluated rabies-suspected samples submitted to the Regional Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory III, Philippines. Furthermore, we conducted real-time RT-PCR and sequencing to measure the accuracy of field laboratory diagnosis. The total number of animals submitted during this study period was 184 cases, including negative control samples. Of these, 53.9% (84 cases) were positive in the dFAT. Dogs were the most common rabies-suspected animal (n = 135). The sensitivities of the ADTEC and Bionote kits were 0.88 (74 cases) and 0.95 (80 cases), respectively. The specificity of both kits was 1.00 (100 cases). Furthermore, the sensitivity and specificity of the ADTEC kit after directly homogenizing the samples in assay buffer without dilution in phosphate-buffered saline (ADTEC kit DM) were 0.94 (79 cases) and 1.00 (100 cases), respectively. By contrast, there were no positive results using the Elabscience kit among all dFAT-positive samples. The sensitivity and specificity of LFDs make these tests highly feasible if properly used. Therefore, LFD tests can be used to strengthen the surveillance of rabies-infected animals in endemic and resource-limited settings.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntigens, ViralDogsFluorescent Antibody Technique, DirectImmunoassayRabiesRabies virusReagent Kits, DiagnosticReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and SpecificityAntigens, ViralReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID33151941
PMCPMC7671516
OpenAlexW3097273695

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.