ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2021
Analytical Evaluation of Dried Blood Spot and Rapid Diagnostic Test as a New Strategy for Serological Community Screening for Chronic Chagas Disease.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Community-Based Screening for HIV and Viral Hepatitis Using Dried Blood Spots in a Migrant Population in Spain: The HEPINMIGRA Study.AIDS and behavior · 2026Article
- Comparison of Cobas Plasma Separation Cards and Whatman filter paper cards versus conventional serum samples for anti-Trypansoma cruzi antibody detection.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- Schistosomiasis in Western Lake Turkana, Kenya: An Exploratory Serosurvey and Validation of Dried Blood Spots for Field Studies.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2026Article
- Article
- Diagnosis and Prevalence of Chagas Disease in an Indigenous Population of Colombia.Microorganisms · 2022Article
- Opportunistic Community Screening of Chronic Chagas Disease Using a Rapid Diagnosis Test in Pharmacies in Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain): Study Protocol and Pilot Phase Results.International journal of public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chagas disease is a public health problem not only in Latin America, but also in other regions, including Spain, due to migration movements. Conventional serological diagnosis requires an invasive sample (plasma or serum) and a well-equipped laboratory. To circumvent those limitations, blood samples dried on filter paper (DBS) or Rapid Diagnostic Test (RDT) could be a practical alternative to reference protocol for serological screening in epidemiological studies. We evaluated the usefulness of dried blood sampling and a rapid diagnostic test (Trypanosoma Detect™) for the detection of antibodies against Methodology/Principal Findings: A total of 162 stored paired whole-blood and serum samples from Latin American migrants and 25 negative-control blood samples were included. Diagnosis of chronic Chagas disease was performed in serum according to WHO algorithms. Blood samples were retrospectively collected as dried spots and then analyzed using two different serological techniques, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (E-CLIA). Whole-blood samples were also used to evaluate a rapid diagnostic test based on immunochromatography. A better correlation with conventional serum was observed in dried blood elutes using E-CLIA than ELISA (97% vs. 77% sensitivity, respectively). Both assays reported 100% specificity. The median cut-off index values of E-CLIA for dried blood were significantly lower than those for serum (138.1 vs. 243.3, Conclusions: The detection of antibodies against
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.