ArticleMedecine tropicale et sante internationale2023
[Reliability evaluation in rural Congo of the calibrated blood smear technique to assess
Article in Medecine tropicale et sante internationale, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- NTDscope: A multi-contrast portable microscope for disease diagnosis.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Variability of Loa loa microfilarial counts in successive blood smears and its potential implication in drug-related serious adverse events.Parasites & vectors · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background-Rationale: The diagnosis of Materials and methods: We evaluated the reliability (reproducibility and repeatability) of blood smear technique using several sets of 10 Results: The estimated and acceptable coefficients of repeatability (NB: the lower, the better) were 13.6% and 16.0%, respectively. The estimated and acceptable coefficients of intermediate reliability (reproducibility) were 15.1% and 22.5%, respectively. The poorest coefficient of intermediate reliability was 19.5% when the tested parameter was related to the technician who performed the readings (10.7% when the reading day was changed). The inter-technician coefficient of variation assessed using 1876
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.