Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39302169›Full record

Observational studyJournal of clinical microbiology2024

Evaluation of a point-of-care multiplex immunochromatographic assay for the diagnosis of typhoid: results from a retrospective diagnostic accuracy study.

Rumina Hasan, Zahida Azizullah, Hina Shams, Sabine Dittrich, Jason R Andrews, Richelle C Charles, Javan Esfandiari, Dhammika Gunasekera, Kevin K A Tetteh, Jyotshna Sapkota

Registry-linked trialAbstract readObservational StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04801602 (Comparative Study of Commercially Available Typhoid Point of Care Tests to Benchmark Current and Emerging Tools), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT04801602 completednot on this map

Comparative Study of Commercially Available Typhoid Point of Care Tests to Benchmark Current and Emerging Tools

TypeobservationalSponsorFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, SwitzerlandRan2020 to 2021Enrolled3,091ConditionsTyphoid FeverArmsRapid diagnostic tests
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
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

10 authors.

Rumina HasanAga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Zahida AzizullahAga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Hina ShamsAga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Sabine DittrichDeggendorf Institut of Technology, European Campus Rottal-Inn, Pfarrkirchen, Germany.
Jason R AndrewsDivision of Infectious Diseases and Geographic Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5967-251X
Richelle C CharlesDivision of Infectious Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Javan EsfandiariChembio Diagnostic Systems, Inc., Medford, New York, USA.
Dhammika GunasekeraChembio Diagnostic Systems, Inc., Medford, New York, USA.
Kevin K A TettehFIND, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jyotshna SapkotaFIND, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-3134-7854

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a clear medical need for an accurate diagnostic test for typhoid that can be performed at point of care. Two antigens (lipopolysaccharide [LPS] and hemolysin E [HlyE]) have recently been identified that can distinguish typhoid from other bacterial infections. Here, we present the results of a diagnostic accuracy study of the Dual Path Platform (DPP) Typhoid assay (Chembio) that detects IgA to both LPS and HlyE using blood culture as the reference standard. This was a retrospective, observational, laboratory study conducted at the Aga Khan University research laboratory, Pakistan, to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the DPP Typhoid assay, using archived frozen serum samples collected during a previous typhoid diagnostic accuracy study (NCT04801602). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (area under the receptor operating characteristics curve [AUC]) were then assessed using the manufacturer's and Youden's optimal thresholds. In total, 385 samples were included in the analysis. Using the manufacturer's thresholds, the sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 97.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 94.6-99.2), 65.3% (95% CI 58.5-71.6), and 81.5% (95% CI 75.5-85.3), respectively. At Youden's optimal threshold, the overall sensitivity of the DPP Typhoid assay was 89.7% and the specificity was 82.2%. In latent class modeling compared with other nine rapid diagnostic tests evaluated from the same cohort sample, the DPP Typhoid assay demonstrated the highest balanced accuracy (89.2%). The DPP Typhoid assay demonstrated a high diagnostic accuracy for typhoid fever. However, further adjustment to new thresholds is recommended to enhance its performance capabilities. IMPORTANCE: Currently available diagnostic tests for typhoid have several limitations, including low sensitivity and specificity. Dual Path Platform Typhoid assay is a multiplex rapid test that detects IgA antibodies to lipopolysaccharide and hemolysin E antigen. It is considered to have high sensitivity and specificity, and its results were found to be highly correlated with ELISA results. However, very few studies have been conducted to evaluate this test and limited information about the accuracy of this test is present. Hence, this study evaluated the new typhoid test.

Indexed as

Antibodies, BacterialPoint-of-Care SystemsSensitivity and SpecificityTyphoid FeverAdolescentAdultAntigens, BacterialChildChild, PreschoolChromatography, AffinityFemaleHemolysin ProteinsHumansImmunoassayImmunoglobulin ALipopolysaccharidesAntibodies, BacterialAntigens, BacterialHemolysin ProteinsImmunoglobulin ALipopolysaccharidesdiagnosticenteric feverpoint-of-careSalmonella Typhityphoid

Identifiers

PMID39302169
PMCPMC11481547

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.