Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35486627›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Comparing the accuracy of two diagnostic methods for detection of light Schistosoma haematobium infection in an elimination setting in Wolaita Zone, South Western Ethiopia.

Hussein Mohammed, Toby Landeryou, Melkie Chernet, Ewnetu Firdawek Liyew, Yonas Wulataw, Birhanu Getachew, Hailemariam Difabachew, Anna Phillips, Rosie Maddren, Alison Ower and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Evaluation of Synthetic Peptides fromACS infectious diseases · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

18 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Hussein MohammedBacterial, Parasitic and Zoonotic Diseases Research Directorate, Ethiopian Public Health Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.ORCID 0000-0002-5677-9522
Toby LanderyouLondon Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research, London, United Kingdom.
Melkie ChernetBacterial, Parasitic and Zoonotic Diseases Research Directorate, Ethiopian Public Health Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Ewnetu Firdawek LiyewBacterial, Parasitic and Zoonotic Diseases Research Directorate, Ethiopian Public Health Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Yonas WulatawBacterial, Parasitic and Zoonotic Diseases Research Directorate, Ethiopian Public Health Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Birhanu GetachewBacterial, Parasitic and Zoonotic Diseases Research Directorate, Ethiopian Public Health Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Hailemariam DifabachewBacterial, Parasitic and Zoonotic Diseases Research Directorate, Ethiopian Public Health Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Anna PhillipsLondon Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1183-7493
Rosie MaddrenLondon Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research, London, United Kingdom.
Alison OwerLondon Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research, London, United Kingdom.
Kalkidan MeketeBacterial, Parasitic and Zoonotic Diseases Research Directorate, Ethiopian Public Health Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Habtamu BelayBacterial, Parasitic and Zoonotic Diseases Research Directorate, Ethiopian Public Health Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Tujuba EndriasBacterial, Parasitic and Zoonotic Diseases Research Directorate, Ethiopian Public Health Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Ufaysa AnjuloDisease Prevention and Health Promotion Core Process, Ministry of Health, Wolaita, Ethiopia.
Geremew TasewBacterial, Parasitic and Zoonotic Diseases Research Directorate, Ethiopian Public Health Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Roy AndersonLondon Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research, London, United Kingdom.
Getachew TolleraBacterial, Parasitic and Zoonotic Diseases Research Directorate, Ethiopian Public Health Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Ebba AbateBacterial, Parasitic and Zoonotic Diseases Research Directorate, Ethiopian Public Health Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Ethiopian Public Health Institute · ETLondon Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research · GBFederal Ministry of Health · ET

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reagent urinalysis dipstick and filtration have been recommended diagnostic methods for the detection of urogenital schistosomiasis. However, the accurate diagnosis of light infections using these methods presents a major challenge. This study evaluates the diagnosis accuracy of light infection with Schistosoma haematobium in study participants living in Wolaita Zone, an area targeted for sustainable control of Schistosomiasis, and ultimately interrupt transmission. Urine samples were collected from children and adults in surveys carried out during baseline and longitudinal sentinel site surveys conducted from 2018 to 2020. All urine samples were tested using a reagent urinalysis dipstick test (Haemastix) to detect microhaematuria with reference urine filtration technique as a proxy for S. haematobium infection. Sensitivity and specificity were determined in diagnosing urogenital schistosomiasis. Cohen's Kappa statistics was done for the agreement of these diagnostic methods. A total of 12,102 participants were enrolled in the current baseline study. Among them, 285 (2.35%) samples tested positive for microhaematuria and 21 (0.20%) positive for S. haematobium eggs. A total of 4,357 samples were examined in year 1 and year 2 using urine dipsticks, and urine filtration 172 (3.95%) and 2 (0.05%) were positive for microhaematuria and S. haematobium eggs. The reagent urinalysis dipsticks showed the highest sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing light intensity of infection,100% (95% CI:85.18-100.00) and 97.4% (95% CI: 97.10-97.60), respectively. There is a slight agreement between the two methods (Kappa = 0.09, 95% CI: 0.01-0.18). The present study revealed very low prevalence and light intensity of S. haematobium infections. The study also highlights that the dipstick test is considered a useful adjunct diagnostic tool for population-based control of urogenital schistosomiasis.

Indexed as

Schistosomiasis haematobiaAdultAnimalsChildEthiopiaFemaleHematuriaHumansMaleSchistosoma haematobiumSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID35486627
PMCPMC9053789
OpenAlexW4225151874

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.