ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2020
Field Evaluation of Cholkit Rapid Diagnostic Test for
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Estimating the proportion of clinically suspected cholera cases that are true Vibrio cholerae infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Cholera Outbreaks in Low- and Middle-Income Countries in the Last Decade: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Microorganisms · 2024Review
- Review of Rapid Diagnostic Methods forThe East African health research journal · 2023Article
- Development of a Monoclonal Antibody to a Vibriophage as a Proxy for Vibrio cholerae Detection.Infection and immunity · 2022Article
- Cholera Rapid Diagnostic Tests for the Detection ofDiagnostics (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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for cholera are an important emerging tool for surveillance, yet the currently available tests have several limitations. We assess the performance of a new RDT, Cholkit, during a cholera outbreak in Malawi compared with culture and find a sensitivity of 93.0% (95% CI, 83.0%-98.1%) and a specificity of 95.7% (95% CI, 78.1%-100.0%).
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.