Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38654559›Full record

ArticleSocial studies of science2024

Equivocal diagnostics: Making a 'good' point-of-care test for elimination in global health.

Alice Street, Emma Michelle Taylor

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social studies of science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alice StreetUniversity of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7874-0234
Emma Michelle TaylorUniversity of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
University of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

European Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

What is a diagnostic test for? We might assume the answer to this question is straightforward. A good test would help identify what disease someone suffers from, assist health providers to determine the correct course of treatment and/or enable public health authorities to know and intervene in health at the level of the population. In this article, we show that what a specific diagnostic test is for, the value it holds for different actors, and what makes it good, or not, is often far from settled. We tell the story of the development and design of a rapid antibody test for onchocerciasis, or river blindness, tracking multiple iterations of the device through three configurational moments in the framing of onchocerciasis disease and reshaping of the global health innovation ecosystem. Efforts to build that ecosystem for diagnostics are often premised on the notion that public health needs for diagnostics are pre-given and stable; the challenge is seen to be how to incentivize investment and find a customer base for diagnostics in under-resourced settings. By contrast, we show that for any disease, diagnostic needs are both multiple and constantly in flux, and are unlikely to be met by a single, stand-alone product. In the case of the onchocerciasis Ov-16 rapid test, the failure to recognize and address the multiplicity and instability of diagnostic needs in the innovation process resulted in the development of a rapid point of care test that might be manufactured, procured and used, but is unloved by public health experts and commercial manufacturers alike. The equivocal value of the onchocerciasis rapid test, we suggest, reveals the inadequacy of the current global health innovation ecosystem for developing diagnostic 'goods'.

Indexed as

Global HealthDisease EradicationHumansOnchocerciasisPoint-of-Care Testingdiagnosticsglobal healthinnovationneglected tropical diseasesproduct development

Identifiers

PMID38654559
PMCPMC11590396
OpenAlexW4395078318

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.