Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35286336›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2022

Validation of the isothermal Schistosoma haematobium Recombinase Polymerase Amplification (RPA) assay, coupled with simplified sample preparation, for diagnosing female genital schistosomiasis using cervicovaginal lavage and vaginal self-swab samples.

John Archer, Farhan K Patwary, Amy S Sturt, Emily L Webb, Comfort Rutty Phiri, Tobias Mweene, Richard J Hayes, Helen Ayles, Eric A T Brienen, Lisette van Lieshout and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Real-Time Monitoring on the Chinese Giant Salamander Using RPA-LFD.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

John ArcherWolfson Wellcome Biomedical Laboratories, Department of Zoology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5160-7185
Farhan K PatwaryDepartment of Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, United Kingdom.
Amy S SturtDepartment of Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3437-3334
Emily L WebbDepartment of Infectious Diseases Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, United Kingdom.
Comfort Rutty PhiriSchool of Medicine, University of Zambia, Zambart, Lusaka, Zambia.
Tobias MweeneSchool of Medicine, University of Zambia, Zambart, Lusaka, Zambia.
Richard J HayesDepartment of Infectious Diseases Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, United Kingdom.
Helen AylesDepartment of Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, United Kingdom.
Eric A T BrienenDepartment of Parasitology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Lisette van LieshoutDepartment of Parasitology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8170-1172
Bonnie L WebsterWolfson Wellcome Biomedical Laboratories, Department of Zoology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0930-9314
Amaya L BustinduyDepartment of Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6131-4159
University of London · GBLeiden University Medical Center · NLLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBNatural History Museum · GBUniversity of Zambia · ZM

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K012126/1Medical Research Council MR/R010161/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 205954/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFemale genital schistosomiasis (FGS) is a neglected and disabling gynecological disease that can result from infection with the parasitic trematode Schistosoma haematobium. Accurate diagnosis of FGS is crucial for effective case management, surveillance and control. However, current methods for diagnosis and morbidity assessment can be inaccessible to those at need, labour intensive, costly and unreliable. Molecular techniques such as PCR can be used to reliably diagnose FGS via the detection of Schistosoma DNA using cervicovaginal lavage (CVL) samples as well as lesser-invasive vaginal self-swab (VSS) and cervical self-swab samples. PCR is, however, currently unsuited for use in most endemic settings. As such, in this study, we assessed the use of a rapid and portable S. haematobium recombinase polymerase amplification (Sh-RPA) isothermal molecular diagnostic assay, coupled with simplified sample preparation methodologies, to detect S. haematobium DNA using CVL and VSS samples provided by patients in Zambia. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsVSS and CVL samples were screened for FGS using a previously developed Sh-RPA assay. DNA was isolated from VSS and CVL samples using the QIAamp Mini kit (n = 603 and 527, respectively). DNA was also isolated from CVL samples using two rapid and portable DNA extraction methods: 1) the SpeedXtract Nucleic Acid Kit (n = 223) and 2) the Extracta DNA Tissue Prep Kit (n = 136). Diagnostic performance of the Sh-RPA using VSS DNA extacts (QIAamp Mini kit) as well as CVL DNA extracts (QIAamp Mini kit, SpeedXtract Nucleic Acid Kit and Extracta DNA Tissue Prep Kit) was then compared to a real-time PCR reference test. Results suggest that optimal performance may be achieved when the Sh-RPA is used with PuVSS samples (sensitivity 93.3%; specificity 96.6%), however no comparisons between different DNA extraction methods using VSS samples could be carried out within this study. When using CVL samples, sensitivity of the Sh-RPA ranged between 71.4 and 85.7 across all three DNA extraction methods when compared to real-time PCR using CVL samples prepared using the QIAamp Mini kit. Interestingly, of these three DNA extraction methods, the rapid and portable SpeedXtract method had the greatest sensitivity and specificity (85.7% and 98.1%, respectively). Specificity of the Sh-RPA was >91% across all comparisons. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: These results supplement previous findings, highlighting that the use of genital self-swab sampling for diagnosing FGS should be explored further whilst also demonstrating that rapid and portable DNA isolation methods can be used to detect S. haematobium DNA within clinical samples using RPA. Although further development and assessment is needed, it was concluded that the Sh-RPA, coupled with simplified sample preparation, shows excellent promise as a rapid and sensitive diagnostic tool capable of diagnosing FGS at the point-of-care in resource-poor schistosomiasis-endemic settings.

Indexed as

Schistosoma haematobiumSchistosomiasisAnimalsDNAFemaleGenitalia, FemaleHumansNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionRecombinasesSensitivity and SpecificityTherapeutic IrrigationDNARecombinases

Identifiers

PMID35286336
PMCPMC8947142
OpenAlexW4220871723

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.