ArticleViruses2023
Laboratory Evaluation and Field Testing of Dengue NS1 and IgM/IgG Rapid Diagnostic Tests in an Epidemic Context in Senegal.
Article in Viruses, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research Advances and Future Perspectives of Point-of-Care Detection Technologies and Biosensors for Mosquito-Borne Viruses.Biosensors · 2026Review
- Combining non-structural protein 1 and IgM tests for acute dengue diagnosis in Saudi Arabia.International health · 2026Article
- Diagnostic challenges in dengue encephalitis: subtle imaging findings and initially negative laboratory test in a kidney transplant recipient.Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria · 2026Article
- Dengue Fever and Its Burden in Burkina Faso: An Overview.Reviews in medical virology · 2026Review
- Clinical Performance of MAGLUMI Diagnostic Tests for the Automated Detection of Dengue Virus.Viruses · 2025Article
- Clinical and Laboratory Features and Treatment Outcomes of Dengue Fever in Pediatric Cases.Cureus · 2024Article
- The use of rapid diagnostic tests for chronic Chagas disease: An expert meeting report.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Senegal, the burden of dengue is increasing and expanding. As case management and traditional diagnostic techniques can be difficult to implement, rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) deployed at point of care are ideal for investigating active outbreaks. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Dengue NS1 and Dengue IgM/IgG RDTs on the serum/plasma samples in a laboratory setting and in the field. During laboratory evaluation, performance of the NS1 RDT was assessed using NS1 ELISA as the gold standard. Sensitivity and specificity were 88% [75-95%] and 100% [97-100%], respectively. Performance of the IgM/IG RDT was assessed using the IgM Antibody Capture (MAC) ELISA, indirect IgG, and PRNT as gold standards. The IgM and IgG test lines respectively displayed sensitivities of 94% [83-99%] and 70% [59-79%] and specificities of 91% [84-95%] and 91% [79-98%]. In the field, the Dengue NS1 RDT sensitivity and specificity was 82% [60-95%] and 75% [53-90%], respectively. The IgM and IgG test lines displayed sensitivities of 86% [42-100%] and 78% [64-88%], specificities of 85% [76-92%] and 55% [36-73%], respectively. These results demonstrate that RDTs are ideal for use in a context of high prevalence or outbreak setting and can be implemented in the absence of a confirmatory test for acute and convalescent patients.
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.