Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34129602›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2021

Laboratory evaluation of the rapid diagnostic tests for the detection of Vibrio cholerae O1 using diarrheal samples.

Goutam Chowdhury, Tarosi Senapati, Bhabatosh Das, Asha Kamath, Debottam Pal, Puja Bose, Arundhati Deb, Sangita Paul, Asish K Mukhopadhyay, Shanta Dutta and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.5field-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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. A decade of antimicrobial resistance inMicrobiology spectrum · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review of Rapid Diagnostic Methods forThe East African health research journal · 2023
    Article
  11. Cholera Rapid Diagnostic Tests for the Detection ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Goutam ChowdhuryDivision of Bacteriology, ICMR-National Institute of Cholera and Enteric Diseases, Kolkata, India.
Tarosi SenapatiMolecular Genetics Laboratory, Infection and Immunology Division, Translational Health Science Institute of Technology, Faridadad, India.ORCID 0000-0001-6199-5601
Bhabatosh DasMolecular Genetics Laboratory, Infection and Immunology Division, Translational Health Science Institute of Technology, Faridadad, India.ORCID 0000-0002-2447-5380
Asha KamathDepartment of Data Science, Prasanna School of Public Health, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, India.
Debottam PalDivision of Epidemiology, ICMR-National Institute of Cholera and Enteric Diseases, Kolkata, India.ORCID 0000-0002-5339-5734
Puja BoseDivision of Bacteriology, ICMR-National Institute of Cholera and Enteric Diseases, Kolkata, India.
Arundhati DebMolecular Genetics Laboratory, Infection and Immunology Division, Translational Health Science Institute of Technology, Faridadad, India.
Sangita PaulDivision of Bacteriology, ICMR-National Institute of Cholera and Enteric Diseases, Kolkata, India.
Asish K MukhopadhyayDivision of Bacteriology, ICMR-National Institute of Cholera and Enteric Diseases, Kolkata, India.
Shanta DuttaDivision of Bacteriology, ICMR-National Institute of Cholera and Enteric Diseases, Kolkata, India.ORCID 0000-0002-6897-7390
Thandavarayan RamamurthyDivision of Bacteriology, ICMR-National Institute of Cholera and Enteric Diseases, Kolkata, India.ORCID 0000-0001-7999-5036
National Institute of Cholera and Enteric Diseases · INTranslational Health Science and Technology Institute · INKasturba Medical College, Manipal · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Reagent Kits, DiagnosticAntigens, BacterialCholeraCholera ToxinDiarrheaHumansIndiaPolymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and SpecificityVibrio cholerae O1Antigens, BacterialCholera ToxinReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID34129602
PMCPMC8232436
OpenAlexW3169596236

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.