ArticleThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene2024
Benefits of Lot Testing to Improve the Quality of Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Tests in India.
Article in The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since 2010, malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are widely used to detect malaria. The Indian Council of Medical Research-National Institute of Malaria Research performed lot testing (LT) according to WHO procedures since 2016. Lot testing is performed to evaluate the lot-to-lot variation in performance of malaria RDTs. Four sets of positive quality control (QC) panels for P. falciparum (Pf) and P. vivax (Pv) and 10 negative panels tested RDTs. RDTs were reported as pass, failed, or deferred on the basis of WHO criteria. In the past 5 years, 275 lots containing 15,488 RDT kits for malaria diagnosis were subjected to LT. The monovalent RDTs (n = 1,216), based on either Pf histidine rich protein 2 (HRP2) or Pan-Plasmodium lactate dehydrogenase (Pan-pLDH) antigens, showed 90.4% sensitivity and 100% specificity, whereas RDTs based on HRP2 + Pan-pLDH or HRP2 + pLDH (n = 13,924) had sensitivity 95.6% and specificity 99.5%, respectively. RDTs based on PfHRP2 + Pv-pLDH + Pan-pLDH (n = 348) had 100% sensitivity and specificity. In a comparison between HRP2 + pLDH or HRP2 + Pan-pLDH to HRP2 + pLDH + Pan-pLDH RDTs, it was found that the sensitivity of PfHRP2 with Pan-pLDH RDTs (n = 2,382) was only 83%. Of the 275 lots analyzed, 15 lots of PfHRP2 with Pan-pLDH were deferred. The QC panel for Pf revealed a faint Pan band in the tested lots, which is a cause for concern. The results of deferred lots were reported to concerned government agencies. Quality-compromised RDTs may lead to an incorrect diagnosis. It is critical to have a QC system in place for effective malaria management.
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.