ReviewJournal of tropical medicine2024
Evaluation of the Urine POC-CCA Test Accuracy in the Detection of
Review in Journal of tropical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the efficacy of different praziquantel treatment regimens using egg and circulating anodic antigen (CAA) detection methods in a Schistosoma mansoni endemic area in northeastern Brazil.International journal for parasitology. Drugs and drug resistance · 2025Trial
- Diagnostic accuracy of plasma cell-free DNA qPCR for Schistosoma haematobium assessed by Bayesian latent class analysis in a cohort of pregnant women from Lambaréné, Gabon.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2026Article
- Prevalence ofEnvironmental health insights · 2026Article
- Detecting Schistosoma infections in endemic countries: a diagnostic accuracy study in rural Madagascar.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2025Article
- Description of the Serological Response After Treatment of Chronic Imported Schistosomiasis.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Schistosomiasis is a common public health problem throughout the world and Methods: Studies published until May 2022 were searched from PubMed, Google Scholar, and grey literature for systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guideline. Eligible studies were selected based on preset inclusion and exclusion criteria. Quality of included studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using Cochrane Results: Thirty-seven studies published in 29 papers and enrolling 21159 study participants were included for analysis. Overall analysis of Point-of-Care Circulating Cathodic Antigen (POC-CCA) test against KK reference standard revealed a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.85-0.87) and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.65-0.67), respectively. Subgroup analysis among 24 studies comparing single POC-CCA with test single KK revealed a high sensitivity (0.88) but low specificity (0.66). Based on findings of 24 studies, the area under the curve (AUC) for the systematic receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was 0.7805, indicating that the POC-CCA test effectively separates those with the disease from those who do not have it. Higher sensitivity estimates of 0.93 and 0.90 were reported when comparisons were made between test results of 2 urine and 1 stool samples, and 3 urine and 3 stool samples, respectively. Single POC-CCA test resulted in a pooled sensitivity estimate of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.78-0.84) as evaluated by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) reference test. Conclusions: The POC-CCA test has higher sensitivity than KK and may serve as a routine diagnostic alternative for disease diagnosis, mapping, and monitoring of interventions. However, its accuracy should further be evaluated at different transmission settings and infection intensity.
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.