ArticleAdvances in laboratory medicine2021
Diagnostic accuracy of
Article in Advances in laboratory medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of rapid and point-of-care tests forFrontiers in parasitology · 2026Pooled it
- Accuracy of Three Serological Techniques for the Diagnosis of Imported Schistosomiasis in Real Clinical Practice: Not All in the Same Boat.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Schistosomiasis is a blood fluke parasitic illness affecting human lives in rural endemic areas. This study evaluated the performance of Methods: Three hundred and seventy four (374) urine samples were examined. Reagent strips, urine filtration and Results: The test had a sensitivity of 94.9%, specificity of 63.9%, positive predictive value of 72.4%, negative predictive value of 92.6%, and positive likelihood ratio of 2.62. Conclusions:
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.