ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Comparison of commercially available, rapid, point-of-care C-reactive protein assays among children with febrile illness in southwestern Uganda.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Trial
- Correction: Comparison of commercially available, rapid, point-of-care C-reactive protein assays among children with febrile illness in southwestern Uganda.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
In Uganda, children with febrile illness are often treated with antibiotics even though most have self-limiting, likely viral, infections. C-reactive protein (CRP) measurement can help identify those who are more likely to have a bacterial infection and therefore need antibiotic treatment. Implementation of a CRP rapid diagnostic test (RDT) at the point-of-care in resource-constrained settings with minimal laboratory infrastructure could reduce unnecessary antibiotic use. In this study, we evaluated the performance of three semi-quantitative CRP RDTs (Actim, BTNX, Duo) against a reference CRP assay requiring an electrically powered analyzer (Afinion). While both tests demonstrated substantial agreement with Afinion, Actim had slightly higher agreement than BTNX. The sensitivity was higher for the BTNX test, whereas the Actim test had a higher specificity, at cut-offs of 40 mg/L and 80 mg/L. At a cut-off of 20 mg/L, Duo demonstrated substantial agreement with the Afinion test as well. Our results demonstrate the reliability of CRP RDTs when compared to a reference standard. CRP RDTs without the need for a laboratory-based analyzer are promising tools for optimizing antibiotic use in low-resource settings.
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.