Trial reportPloS one2021
Diagnostic performance of a rapid whole blood-based RT-LAMP method for malaria diagnosis among apparently healthy blood donors and febrile neonates in Cameroon.
Trial report in PloS one, 2021. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Burden and clinical impact of 'neglected' transfusion-transmitted infections in Cameroon: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic value of rapid test for malaria among febrile neonates in a tertiary hospital in North-East Nigeria: a prospective cross-sectional study.Archives of disease in childhood · 2023Article
- Reverse transcription loop‑mediated isothermal amplification has a high performance in the detection of SARS‑CoV‑2 in saliva samples and nasal swabs from asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2023Article
- Promise and perils of paper-based point-of-care nucleic acid detection for endemic and pandemic pathogens.Lab on a chip · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Light microscopy and rapid diagnostic tests are the two commonly used methods for malaria diagnosis that rely on the direct use of unprocessed blood samples. However, both methods do not have the level of sensitivity required for malaria diagnosis in cases of low density parasitaemia. We report here the diagnostic performance of a whole blood-based reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification method for Plasmodium falciparum malaria diagnosis in apparently healthy blood donors and febrile neonates in Cameroon. The presence of malaria parasites in whole blood samples was determined by light microscopy, antigen-based rapid diagnostic test (RDT), and by RT-LAMP using a "lyse and amplify" experimental protocol. Of the 256 blood donors tested, 36 (14.1%) were positive for malaria parasites by light microscopy, 38 (14.8%) were positive by RDT whereas 78 (30.5%) were positive by RT-LAMP. Only light microscopy and RT-LAMP detected infection among the febrile neonates (279 neonates, median age: 2 days, range: 1-9 days), with positivity rates of 8.6% and 12.2%, respectively. The overall concordance between the three methods were 75.9% for RT-LAMP and light microscopy, 75.1% for RT-LAMP and RDT, and 83.9% for light microscopy and RDT. Blood parasite densities were significantly lower in the neonates (mean: 97.6, range: 61-192 parasites/μL) compared to the blood donors (mean: 447.8, range: 63-11 000 parasites/μL). Together, the study demonstrates the usefulness of whole blood RT-LAMP for use in rapid pre-screening of blood donors and suspected neonates to avert severe consequences of P. falciparum infections.
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.