Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35793330›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2022

Cholera diagnosis in human stool and detection in water: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jennifer Falconer, Karin Diaconu, Fiona O'May, Advaith Gummaraju, Ifeyinwa Victor-Uadiale, Joseph Matragrano, Berthe-Marie Njanpop-Lafourcade, Alastair Ager

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Jennifer FalconerInstitute for Global Health and Development, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, Scotland.ORCID 0000-0002-0807-8764
Karin DiaconuInstitute for Global Health and Development, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Fiona O'MayInstitute for Global Health and Development, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Advaith GummarajuLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Ifeyinwa Victor-UadialeInstitute for Global Health and Development, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Joseph MatragranoColumbia University, New York, New York, United States of America.
Berthe-Marie Njanpop-LafourcadeAgence de Médecine Préventive, Paris, France.
Alastair AgerInstitute for Global Health and Development, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Queen Margaret University · GBAgence de Médecine Préventive · FRColumbia University · USLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

A Household Yeast Biosensor for CholeraR01AI110794 · NIAID · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · PI CORNISH, VIRGINIA W · 2015 to 2019
$3.2M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI110794
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCholera continues to pose a problem for low-resource, fragile and humanitarian contexts. Evidence suggests that 2.86 million cholera cases and 95,000 deaths due to cholera are reported annually. Without quick and effective diagnosis and treatment, case-fatality may be 50%. In line with the priorities of the Global Task Force on Cholera Control, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy and other test characteristics of current tests for cholera detection in stool and water.

methodsWe searched 11 bibliographic and grey literature databases. Data was extracted on test sensitivity, specificity and other product information. Meta-analyses of sensitivity and specificity were conducted for tests reported in three or more studies. Where fewer studies reported a test, estimates were summarised through narrative synthesis. Risk of Bias was assessed using QUADAS-2.

resultsSearches identified 6,637 records; 41 studies reporting on 28 tests were included. Twenty-two tests had both sensitivities and specificities reported above 95% by at least one study, but there was, overall, wide variation in reported diagnostic accuracy across studies. For the three tests where meta-analyses were possible the highest sensitivity meta-estimate was found in the Cholera Screen test (98.6%, CI: 94.7%-99.7%) and the highest specificity meta-estimate in the Crystal VC on enriched samples (98.3%, CI: 92.8%-99.6%). There was a general lack of evidence regarding field use of tests, but where presented this indicated trends for lower diagnostic accuracy in field settings, with lesser-trained staff, and without the additional process of sample enrichment. Where reported, mean test turnaround times ranged from over 50% to 130% longer than manufacturer's specification. Most studies had a low to unclear risk of bias.

conclusionsCurrently available Rapid Diagnostic Tests can potentially provide high diagnostic and detection capability for cholera. However, stronger evidence is required regarding the conditions required to secure these levels of accuracy in field use, particularly in low-resource settings. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42016048428).

Indexed as

CholeraAdvisory CommitteesDatabases, FactualFecesHumansWaterWater

Identifiers

PMID35793330
PMCPMC9258865
OpenAlexW4285740483

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.