Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37539522›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology and infection2023

Evaluation of a rapid diagnostic test for measles IgM detection; accuracy and the reliability of visual reading using sera from the measles surveillance programme in Brazil, 2015.

Lenesha Warrener, Nick Andrews, Halima Koroma, Isabella Alessandrini, Mahmoud Haque, Cristiana C Garcia, Aline R Matos, Braulia Caetano, Xenia R Lemos, Marilda M Siqueira and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. What's going on with measles?Journal of virology · 2024
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

12 authors.

Lenesha WarrenerPublic Health Microbiology Division, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8757-4610
Nick AndrewsImmunisation and Vaccine Preventable Diseases Division, UKHSA, London, UK.
Halima KoromaPublic Health Microbiology Division, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), London, UK.
Isabella AlessandriniPublic Health Microbiology Division, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), London, UK.
Mahmoud HaquePublic Health Microbiology Division, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), London, UK.
Cristiana C GarciaLaboratory of Respiratory Viruses, Exanthematics, Enteroviruses and Viral Emergencies (LVRE), Oswaldo Cruz Institute, FIOCRUZ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Aline R MatosLaboratory of Respiratory Viruses, Exanthematics, Enteroviruses and Viral Emergencies (LVRE), Oswaldo Cruz Institute, FIOCRUZ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Braulia CaetanoLaboratory of Respiratory Viruses, Exanthematics, Enteroviruses and Viral Emergencies (LVRE), Oswaldo Cruz Institute, FIOCRUZ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Xenia R LemosLaboratory of Respiratory Viruses, Exanthematics, Enteroviruses and Viral Emergencies (LVRE), Oswaldo Cruz Institute, FIOCRUZ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Marilda M SiqueiraLaboratory of Respiratory Viruses, Exanthematics, Enteroviruses and Viral Emergencies (LVRE), Oswaldo Cruz Institute, FIOCRUZ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Dhanraj SamuelPublic Health Microbiology Division, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), London, UK.
David W BrownPublic Health Microbiology Division, UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Laboratory-based case confirmation is an integral part of measles surveillance programmes; however, logistical constraints can delay response. Use of RDTs during initial patient contact could enhance surveillance by real-time case confirmation and accelerating public health response. Here, we evaluate performance of a novel measles IgM RDT and assess accuracy of visual interpretation using a representative collection of 125 sera from the Brazilian measles surveillance programme. RDT results were interpreted visually by a panel of six independent observers, the consensus of three observers and by relative reflectance measurements using an ESEQuant Reader. Compared to the Siemens anti-measles IgM EIA, sensitivity and specificity of the RDT were 94.9% (74/78, 87.4-98.6%) and 95.7% (45/47, 85.5-99.5%) for consensus visual results, and 93.6% (73/78, 85.7-97.9%) and 95.7% (45/47, 85.5-99.5%), for ESEQuant measurement, respectively. Observer agreement, determined by comparison between individuals and visual consensus results, and between individuals and ESEQuant measurements, achieved average kappa scores of 0.97 and 0.93 respectively. The RDT has the sensitivity and specificity required of a field-based test for measles diagnosis, and high kappa scores indicate this can be accomplished accurately by visual interpretation alone. Detailed studies are needed to establish its role within the global measles control programme.

Indexed as

MeaslesMeasles virusAntibodies, ViralBrazilHumansImmunoglobulin MRapid Diagnostic TestsReadingReproducibility of ResultsAntibodies, ViralImmunoglobulin MICTIgMimmunochromatographic testimmunoglobulin Mlateral flowmeaslesrapid diagnostic testRDTrubeolaserologysurveillancevaccine preventable disease

Identifiers

PMID37539522
PMCPMC10548541

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.