Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33772349›Full record

Trial reportParasitology research2021

Diagnostic performance of rapid diagnostic test, light microscopy and polymerase chain reaction during mass survey conducted in low and high malaria-endemic areas from two North-Eastern states of India.

Hari Shankar, Mrigendra Pal Singh, Sobhan Phookan, Kuldeep Singh, Neelima Mishra

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Parasitology research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Unmasking Malaria: Microscopy and nPCR Reveal the Hidden Misdiagnosis ofInterdisciplinary perspectives on infectious diseases · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. ISCCM Position Statement on the Management of Severe Malaria in Intensive Care Unit.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors.

Hari ShankarParasite-Host Biology Group, ICMR-National Institute of Malaria Research, Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi, 110077, India.
Mrigendra Pal SinghParasite-Host Biology Group, ICMR-National Institute of Malaria Research, Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi, 110077, India.
Sobhan PhookanICMR-National Institute of Malaria Research Field Unit, Guwahati, Assam, 781022, India.
Kuldeep SinghICMR-National Institute of Malaria Research Field Unit, Guwahati, Assam, 781022, India.
Neelima MishraParasite-Host Biology Group, ICMR-National Institute of Malaria Research, Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi, 110077, India. neelima1.nimr@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1736-368X

Funding

Indian Council of Medical Research NER/55/2015/ECD-I
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An early and accurate diagnosis followed by prompt treatment is pre-requisite for the management of any disease. Malaria diagnosis is routinely performed by microscopy and rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) in the field settings; however, their performance may vary across regions, age and asymptomatic status. Owing to this, we assessed the diagnostic performance of conventional and advanced molecular tools for malaria detection in low and high malaria-endemic settings. We performed mass blood surveys in low and high endemic regions of two North-Eastern districts from the states of Assam and Meghalaya. A total of 3322 individuals were screened for malaria using RDT, microscopy and PCR and measures of diagnostic accuracy were estimated. Out of 3322 individuals, 649 (19.5%) were detected with malaria parasite. Asymptomatic were 86.4% (2872/3322), of which 19.4% (557/2872) had Plasmodium infection. The sensitivity and specificity of microscopy were 42.7% and 99.3%, and RDT showed 49.9% and 90.4%, respectively, considering PCR as standard. RDT (AUC: 0.65 vs 0.74; p = 0.001) and microscopy (AUC: 0.64 vs 0.76; p < 0.0001) performances were significantly lower in low compared to high endemic areas. True positive rate was lower in asymptomatics but true negative rate was found similar to symptomatic individuals. The conventional diagnostic tools (RDT and microscopy) had detected malaria in children with nearly twofold greater sensitivity than in the adults (p < 0.05). To conclude, asymptomatics, adults and low malaria-endemic regions require major attention due to mediocre performance of conventional diagnostic tools in malaria detection.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Tests, RoutineMalariaMicroscopyPolymerase Chain ReactionAdolescentAdultChildHumansIndiaSensitivity and SpecificityYoung AdultAsymptomaticDiagnosisEndemicityMalariaMolecular method

Identifiers

PMID33772349
PMCPMC7997798

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.