ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2021
Laboratory evaluation of the rapid diagnostic tests for the detection of Vibrio cholerae O1 using diarrheal samples.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cholera burden in Ghana: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence, antimicrobial resistance and risk factors.International health · 2025Pooled 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
- Syndromic cholera diagnosis masks diverse causes of diarrhoeal disease in Burundi revealed by portable metagenomics.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- A decade of antimicrobial resistance inMicrobiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Can Wastewater Surveillance Enhance Genomic Tracking of Climate-Driven Pathogens?Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of Vibrio cholerae isolates from cholera outbreak sites in Ethiopia.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Cholera rages in Africa and the Middle East: A narrative review on challenges and solutions.Health science reports · 2024Review
- Poor Sensitivity of Stool Culture Compared to Polymerase Chain Reaction in Surveillance forOpen forum infectious diseases · 2023Article
- An efficient DNAzyme for the fluorescence detection ofFood science & nutrition · 2023Article
- Review of Rapid Diagnostic Methods forThe East African health research journal · 2023Article
- 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
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCholera, an acute diarrheal disease is a major public health problem in many developing countries. Several rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) are available for the detection of cholera, but their efficacies are not compared in an endemic setting. In this study, we have compared the specificity and sensitivity of three RDT kits for the detection of Vibrio cholerae O1 and compared their efficiency with culture and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods.
methodsFive hundred six diarrheal stool samples collected from patients from two different hospitals in Kolkata, India were tested using SD Bioline Cholera, SMART-II Cholera O1 and Crystal-VC RDT kits. All the stool samples were screened for the presence of V. cholerae by direct and enrichment culture methods. Stool DNA-based PCR assay was made to target the cholera toxin (ctxAB) and O1 somatic antigen (rfb) encoding genes. Statistical evaluation of the RDTs has been made using STATA software with stool culture and PCR results as the gold standards. The Bayesian latent class model (LCM) was used to evaluate the diagnostic tests in the absence of the gold standard.
resultsInvolving culture technique as gold standard, the sensitivity and specificity of the cholera RDT kits in the direct testing of stools was highest with SAMRT-II (86.1%) and SD-Cholera (94.4%), respectively. The DNA based PCR assays gave very high sensitivity (98.4%) but the specificity was comparatively low (75.3%). After enrichment, the high sensitivity and specificity was detected with SAMRT-II (78.8%) and SD-Cholera (99.1%), respectively. Considering PCR as the gold standard, the sensitivity and specificity of the RDTs remained between 52.3-58.2% and 92.3-96.8%, respectively. In the LCM, the sensitivity of direct and enrichment testing was high in SAMRT-II (88% and 92%, respectively), but the specificity was high in SD cholera for both the methods (97% and 100%, respectively). The sensitivity/specificity of RDTs and direct culture have also been analyzed considering the age, gender and diarrheal disease severity of the patients.
conclusionOverall, the performance of the RDT kits remained almost similar in terms of specificity and sensitivity. Performance of PCR was superior to the antibody-based RDTs. The RTDs are very useful in identifying cholera cases during outbreak/epidemic situations and for making them as a point-of-care (POC) testing tool needs more improvement.
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.