ArticleEClinicalMedicine2022
Evaluation of Zika rapid tests as aids for clinical diagnosis and epidemic preparedness.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2022. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- High seroprevalence of antibodies to Dengue, Chikungunya, and Zika viruses in Dire Dawa, Ethiopia: A cross-sectional survey in 2024.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Article
- Flavivirus infections and diagnostic challenges for dengue, West Nile and Zika Viruses.Npj viruses · 2025Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of DPP Fever Panel II Asia tests for tropical fever diagnosis.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2024Article
- Chikungunya fever.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2023Review
- Arbovirus Seroprevalence Study in Bangphae District, Ratchaburi Province, Thailand: Comparison between ELISA and a Multiplex Rapid Diagnostic Test (Chembio DPPTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2022Article
- Monkeypox: balancing response and future preparedness during a global public health emergency.BMJ global 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
16 authors at 6 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Development and evaluation of diagnostics for diseases of epidemic potential are often funded during epidemics, but not afterwards, leaving countries unprepared for the next epidemic. United Nations Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) partnered with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to address this important gap by investing in an advance purchase commitment (APC) mechanism to accelerate the development and evaluation of Zika rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for case detection and surveillance. This paper describes the performance evaluation of five Zika RDTs eligible for procurement. Methods: A network of European Union-funded ZikaPLAN sites in Africa, Asia, Latin America with access to relevant serum specimens were selected to evaluate RDTs developed for the UNICEF APC mechanism. A standardised protocol and evaluation panels were developed and a call for specimens for the evaluation panels issued to different sites. Each site contributed specimens to the evaluation from their biobank. Data were collated, analysed and presented to the UNICEF Procurement Review Group for review. Findings: Three RDTs met the criteria for UNICEF procurement of sensitivity and specificity of 85% against a refence standard. The sensitivity/specificity of the ChemBio anti-Zika Virus (ZIKV) immunoglobulin M (IgM) test was 86.4 %/86.7% and the ChemBio ZCD system for anti-ZIKV IgM was 79.0%/97.1%, anti-dengue virus (DENV) IgM 90.0%/89.2%, anti-Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) IgM 90.6%/97.2%. The sensitivity/specificity of the SD Biosensor anti-ZIKV IgM was 96.8 %/90.8%, anti-DENV IgM 71.8%/83.5%, the DENV nonstructural protein 1 (NS1) glycoprotein 90.0%/90.2%, anti- yellow fever virus (YFV) IgM 84.6%/92.4%, anti-CHIKV IgM 86.3%/97.5%. Interpretation: Three RDTs fulfilled the performance thresholds set by WHO and were eligible for UNICEF procurement. These tests will improve the diagnosis of ZIKV and other arboviral infections as well as providing countries with better tools for surveillance and response to future epidemics. Funding: This work was supported by the USAID grant GHA-G-00-07-00007 and ZikaPLAN (European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under Grant Agreement No. 734584).
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.