SynthesisPloS one2022
Comparison of diagnostic performance between conventional and ultrasensitive rapid diagnostic tests for diagnosis of malaria: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of novel Biocredit species-specific LDH-based immunochromatographic assay for Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic role of Sysmex hematology analyzer in the detection of malaria: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Diagnostic challenges in malaria detection: A comparative diagnostic performance of HRP2-based rapid diagnostic tests, microscopy, and PCR at Bichena primary hospital, Northwest Ethiopia.Parasite epidemiology and control · 2026Article
- Field and laboratory evaluation of Abbott-Bioline™ Malaria Ag Pf/Pv RDT performance in a high-transmission setting: contrasting results with a low-endemic area.Malaria journal · 2026Article
- Integrating local malaria molecular monitoring into regular malaria indicator surveys on Bioko Island: high association between urban communities and low-density infections.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- Estimating malaria antigen dynamics and the time to negativity of next-generation malaria rapid diagnostic tests.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- Persistent low-density infection in areas at risk of malaria reintroduction in Malaysia.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Slow clearance of histidine-rich protein-2 in Gabonese with uncomplicated malaria.Microbiology spectrum · 2024Observational
- Malaria diagnosis challenges andPathogens and global health · 2024Article
- Comparison of three rapid diagnostic tests for Plasmodium falciparum diagnosis in Ghana.Malaria journal · 2024Article
- High prevalence of asymptomatic and subpatent Plasmodium falciparum infections but no histidine-rich protein 2 gene deletion in Bouaké, Côte d'Ivoire.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Comparison of SD Bioline Malaria Ag Pf/Pan and Acro Malaria P.f./P.v./Pan with Microscopy and Real Time PCR for the Diagnosis of HumanDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Challenges in Diagnosing and Treating Acutely Febrile Children with Suspected Malaria at Health Care Facilities in the Lake Mwanza Region of Tanzania.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2024Article
- Diagnostic performance of ultrasensitive rapid diagnostic test for the detection of Plasmodium falciparum infections in asymptomatic individuals in Kisangani, Northeast Democratic Republic of Congo.Malaria journal · 2023Article
- Performance of ultra-sensitive malaria rapid diagnostic test to detect Plasmodium falciparum infection in pregnant women in Kinshasa, the Democratic Republic of the Congo.Malaria journal · 2023Article
- Article
- Malaria in pregnancy (MiP) studies assessing the clinical performance of highly sensitive rapid diagnostic tests (HS-RDT) for Plasmodium falciparum detection.Malaria journal · 2023Review
- Recent Advances in Imported Malaria Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Management.Current emergency and hospital medicine reports · 2023Review
- Performance Evaluation of Nested Polymerase Chain Reaction (Nested PCR), Light Microscopy, andPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSuccessful malaria treatment, control and elimination programs require accurate, affordable, and field-deployable diagnostic tests. A number of studies have directly compared diagnostic performance between the new ultrasensitive rapid diagnostic test (us-RDT) and conventional rapid diagnostic test (co-RDT) for detecting malaria. Thus, we undertook this review to directly compare pooled diagnostic performance of us-RDT and co-RDT for detection of malaria.
methodsPubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and ProQuest were searched from their inception until 31 January 2021 accompanied by forward and backward citations tracking. Two authors independently assessed the quality of included studies by RevMan5 software (using the QUADAS-2 checklist). Diagnostic accuracy estimates (sensitivity and specificity and others) were pooled using a random-effect model and 95% confidence interval (CI) in Stata 15 software.
resultsFifteen studies with a total of 20,236 paired co-RDT and us-RDT tests were included in the meta-analysis. Molecular methods (15 studies) and immunoassay test (one study) were used as standard methods for comparison with co-RDT and us-RDT tests. The pooled sensitivity for co-RDT and us-RDT were 42% (95%CI: 25-62%) and 61% (95%CI: 47-73%), respectively, with specificity of 99% (95%CI: 98-100%) for co-RDT, and 99% (95%CI: 96-99%) for us-RDT. In asymptomatic individuals, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of co-RDT were 27% (95%CI: 8-58%) and 100% (95%CI: 97-100%), respectively, while us-RDT had a sensitivity of 50% (95%CI: 33-68%) and specificity of 98% (95%CI: 94-100%). In low transmission settings, pooled sensitivity for co-RDT was 36% (95%CI: 9 76%) and 62% (95%CI: 44 77%) for us RDT, while in high transmission areas, pooled sensitivity for co RDT and us RDT were 62% (95%CI: 39 80%) and 75% (95%CI: 57-87%), respectively.
conclusionThe us-RDT test showed better performance than co-RDT test, and this characteristic is more evident in asymptomatic individuals and low transmission areas; nonetheless, additional studies integrating a range of climate, geography, and demographics are needed to reliably understand the potential of the us-RDT.
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.