ArticleBMC infectious diseases2024
Clinic-based evaluation of point-of-care dual HIV/syphilis rapid diagnostic tests at primary healthcare antenatal facilities in South Africa and Zambia.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Rapid/point-of-care syphilis testing in high-income countries: insights and implementation challenges from the authors' experience in Canada.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSouthern African countries have the largest global burden of HIV and syphilis, with a high prevalence among women of reproductive age. Although antenatal screening is standard of care, syphilis screening has generally lagged behind HIV screening. We aimed to evaluate the performance and operational characteristics of two commercial dual HIV/syphilis point-of-care tests (POCTs) for simultaneous maternal HIV/syphilis screening.
methodsA clinic-based evaluation of dual HIV/syphilis POCTs (SD Bioline and Chembio) was conducted at five primary healthcare centres (PHCs) in South Africa and Zambia. POCT results using capillary fingerprick blood were compared to reference laboratory syphilis and HIV serological assays.
resultsThree thousand four hundred twelve consenting pregnant women aged ≥ 18 years were enrolled. The prevalence of treponemal antibody seropositivity and HIV infection ranged from 3.7 to 9.9% (n = 253) and 17.8 to 21.3% (n = 643), respectively. Pooled sensitivity for syphilis compared to the reference assay was 66.0% (95%CI 57.7-73.4) with SD Bioline and 67.9% (95%CI 58.2-76.3) with Chembio. Pooled specificity for syphilis was above 98% with both POCTs. The sensitivities of SD Bioline and Chembio assays were 78.0% (95%CI 68.6-85.7) and 81.0% (95%CI 71.9-88.2), respectively compared to an active syphilis case definition of treponemal test positive with a rapid plasma reagin titre of ≥ 8. The negative predictive values (NPVs) based on various prevalence estimates for syphilis with both assays ranged from 97 to 99%. The pooled sensitivity for HIV was 92.1% (95%CI 89.4-94.2) with SD Bioline; and 91.5% (95%CI 88.2-93.9) with Chembio. The pooled specificities for HIV were 97.2% (95%CI 94.8-98.5) with SD Bioline and 96.7% (95%CI 95.1-97.8) with Chembio. The NPV based on various prevalence estimates for HIV with both assays was approximately 98%. Most participating women (91%) preferred dual POCTs over two single POCTs for HIV and syphilis, and healthcare providers gave favourable feedback on the utility of both assays at PHC level.
conclusionsBased on the need to improve antenatal screening coverage for syphilis, dual HIV/syphilis POCTs could be effectively incorporated into antenatal testing algorithms to enhance efforts towards elimination of mother-to-child transmission of these infections.
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.