ArticleMalaria journal2022
Novel application of one-step pooled molecular testing and maximum likelihood approaches to estimate the prevalence of malaria parasitaemia among rapid diagnostic test negative samples in western Kenya.
Article in Malaria journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDetection of malaria parasitaemia in samples that are negative by rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) requires resource-intensive molecular tools. While pooled testing using a two-step strategy provides a cost-saving alternative to the gold standard of individual sample testing, statistical adjustments are needed to improve accuracy of prevalence estimates for a single step pooled testing strategy.
methodsA random sample of 4670 malaria RDT negative dried blood spot samples were selected from a mass testing and treatment trial in Asembo, Gem, and Karemo, western Kenya. Samples were tested for malaria individually and in pools of five, 934 pools, by one-step quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Maximum likelihood approaches were used to estimate subpatent parasitaemia (RDT-negative, qPCR-positive) prevalence by pooling, assuming poolwise sensitivity and specificity was either 100% (strategy A) or imperfect (strategy B). To improve and illustrate the practicality of this estimation approach, a validation study was constructed from pools allocated at random into main (734 pools) and validation (200 pools) subsets. Prevalence was estimated using strategies A and B and an inverse-variance weighted estimator and estimates were weighted to account for differential sampling rates by area.
resultsThe prevalence of subpatent parasitaemia was 14.5% (95% CI 13.6-15.3%) by individual qPCR, 9.5% (95% CI (8.5-10.5%) by strategy A, and 13.9% (95% CI 12.6-15.2%) by strategy B. In the validation study, the prevalence by individual qPCR was 13.5% (95% CI 12.4-14.7%) in the main subset, 8.9% (95% CI 7.9-9.9%) by strategy A, 11.4% (95% CI 9.9-12.9%) by strategy B, and 12.8% (95% CI 11.2-14.3%) using inverse-variance weighted estimator from poolwise validation. Pooling, including a 20% validation subset, reduced costs by 52% compared to individual testing.
conclusionsCompared to individual testing, a one-step pooled testing strategy with an internal validation subset can provide accurate prevalence estimates of PCR-positivity among RDT-negatives at a lower cost.
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.