ArticleAnnals of African medicine
SD-Bioline malaria rapid diagnostic test performance and time to become negative after treatment of malaria infection in Southwest Nigerian Children.
Article in Annals of African medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Low practical knowledge but high willingness to use malaria rapid diagnostic tests among healthcare workers in the Republic of Congo.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Field performance of the SD Bioline Malaria Ag P.f. rapid diagnostic test among children under five in Nigeria: insights from the 2021 Malaria Indicator Survey.Malaria journal · 2026Article
- Varying Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Test Accuracy by Regional Transmission Level and Demographics in Tanzania.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2026Article
- Investigating the Abbott-Bioline™ malaria antigen Pf/Pv rapid diagnostic test.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- Estimating malaria antigen dynamics and the time to negativity of next-generation malaria rapid diagnostic tests.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- Comparative Performance of Blood and Urine Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Tests in Detecting Malaria in Febrile Children: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.Sage open pediatricsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context and Aim: Given the challenges of microscopy, we compared its performance with SD-Bioline malaria rapid diagnostic test (MRDT) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and evaluated the time it took for positive results to become negative after treatment of children with acute uncomplicated malaria. Subjects and Methods: We present the report of 485 participants with complete MRDT, microscopy, and PCR data out of 511 febrile children aged 3-59 months who participated in a cohort study over a 12-month period in rural and urban areas of Ibadan, Nigeria. MRDT-positive children received antimalaria and tested at every visit over 28 days. Speciation was also carried out by PCR. Results: With microscopy as the gold standard, SD-Bioline™ had 95.2% sensitivity, 66.4% specificity, 67.5% positive predictive value (PPV), and 94.9 negative predictive value (NPV), while with PCR the findings were 84.3% sensitivity, 66.5% specificity, 72.7% PPV, and 80.1% NPV. PCR speciation of malaria parasites revealed 91.6% Plasmodium falciparum, 18.9% Plasmodium malariae, and 4.4% Plasmodium ovale. Among the 47 children with P. malariae infections, 66.0% were coinfected with P. falciparum, while 54.6% cases of P. ovale occurred as coinfections with P. falciparum. The median time to a negative MRDT was 23.2 days, while the median time to a negative malaria microscopy was 3.8 days. The two survival curves were significantly different. Conclusions: The SD-Bioline
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.