Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35239906›Full record

ArticleRevista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical2022

Reliability of point-of-care circulating cathodic antigen assay for diagnosing schistosomiasis mansoni in urine samples from an endemic area of Brazil after one year of storage at -20 degrees Celsius.

Tereza Cristina Favre, Lilian Christina Nóbrega Holsback Beck, Fernando Schemelzer Moraes Bezerra, Carlos Graeff-Teixeira, Paulo Marcos Zech Coelho, Martin Johannes Enk, Naftale Katz, Ricardo Riccio Oliveira, Mitermayer Galvão Dos Reis, Otávio Sarmento Pieri

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Tereza Cristina FavreFundação Oswaldo Cruz, Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Laboratório de Educação em Ambiente e Saúde, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3443-1696
Lilian Christina Nóbrega Holsback BeckFundação Oswaldo Cruz, Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Laboratório de Educação em Ambiente e Saúde, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9362-217X
Fernando Schemelzer Moraes BezerraUniversidade Federal do Ceará, Departamento de Análises Clínicas e Toxicológicas, Fortaleza, CE, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4920-7718
Carlos Graeff-TeixeiraUniversidade Federal do Espírito Santo, Centro de Ciências da Saúde, Unidade de Doenças Infecciosas, Vitória, ES, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2725-0061
Paulo Marcos Zech CoelhoFundação Oswaldo Cruz, Instituto René Rachou, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2443-8897
Martin Johannes EnkInstituto Evandro Chagas, Laboratório de Parasitoses Intestinais, Esquistossomose e Malacologia, Secção de Parasitologia, Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3209-1758
Naftale KatzFundação Oswaldo Cruz, Instituto René Rachou, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0764-7141
Ricardo Riccio OliveiraFundação Oswaldo Cruz, Instituto Gonçalo Moniz, Salvador, BA, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9586-2313
Mitermayer Galvão Dos ReisFundação Oswaldo Cruz, Instituto Gonçalo Moniz, Salvador, BA, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3051-9060
Otávio Sarmento PieriFundação Oswaldo Cruz, Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, Laboratório de Educação em Ambiente e Saúde, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5732-1935
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz · BRInstituto Evandro Chagas · BRPontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul · BRUniversidade Federal da Bahia · BRUniversidade Federal do Ceará · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe World Health Organization recommends reliable point-of-care (POC) diagnostic testing to eliminate schistosomiasis. Lateral flow immunoassay that detects schistosome circulating cathodic antigen (CCA) in urine to establish prevalence thresholds for intervention in endemic areas is recommended. Stored urine may be useful if surveying at-risk populations is delayed or interrupted by unforeseen circumstances, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. This study evaluated the manufacturer's claim that Schistosoma mansoni infection can be reliably diagnosed in urine samples stored at -20°C for one year.

methodsTwo-hundred-forty-two subjects from an endemic site in Brazil provided one urine sample each for testing with URINE CCA (SCHISTO) ECO TESTE® (POC-ECO) and one stool sample each for testing with Kato-Katz (KK) and Helmintex® (HTX) as a robust reference standard for infection status. At least 2 ml of urine from each participant was stored at -20°C; after one year, 76 samples were randomly selected for POC-ECO retesting.

resultsThe POC-ECO agreement between freshly collected and stored urine was inadequate considering trace results as positive (Cohen's kappa coefficient κ = 0.08) and negative (κ = 0.36). POC-ECO accuracy was not significantly greater than that of routine KK (54%; 95% confidence interval: 42.1%-65.5%).

conclusionsThe precision and accuracy of POC-ECO have to be optimized in both freshly collected and stored urine before it can be recommended for use in control programs in Brazil.

Indexed as

COVID-19Schistosomiasis mansoniAnimalsAntigens, HelminthBrazilFecesHumansPandemicsPoint-of-Care SystemsPrevalenceReproducibility of ResultsSARS-CoV-2Schistosoma mansoniSensitivity and SpecificityAntigens, Helminth

Identifiers

PMID35239906
PMCPMC8909435
OpenAlexW4214658932

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.