ArticlePloS one2024
Evaluation of a modified quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay for genus Schistosoma detection using stool and urine samples from schistosomiasis endemic areas in Kenya.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Comparative evaluation of Sm1-7-qPCR systems incorporated with Maxwell kit-based and NaOH-based DNA extraction methods for the detection of Schistosoma mansoni infection.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe microscopy-based Kato-Katz and urine filtration techniques have traditionally faced challenges in the detection of schistosomiasis in areas with low infection levels. A modified singleplex Schistosoma genus-specific quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assay was therefore evaluated as a sensitive and confirmatory schistosomiasis diagnostic test. METHODOLOGY: The qPCR assay utilized primers and probe targeting internal transcribed spacer- 2 (ITS2) sequence of S. mansoni, S. haematobium and S. intercalatum. A plasmid (pDMD801, 100pg/ul) was used as an internal amplification control and its qPCR assays were run in parallel to the Schistosoma assays. This assay utilized samples collected from 774 participants and microscopically examined for three consecutive days. A total of 699 day-one samples (urine and stools) from two schistosomiasis endemic sites were analyzed. Similarly, 75 persons from a non-endemic control site provided both urine and stool samples that were also analyzed.
resultsUsing microscopy, the proportion of positives in the two endemic regions altogether was 289/699 (41.3%). Using qPCR, 50.4% of the samples (352/699) were found to be positive for schistosome infection. The percentage of positive samples was slightly higher at 57.8% (203/351) in the S. mansoni endemic site compared with the S. haematobium site at 42.8% (149/348). Majority of the microscopy results were light infections at 26.8% (n = 94) and 26.1% (n = 91) while qPCR majority of the infections were high at 41.6% (n = 146) and 31.3% (n = 109) for the S. mansoni and S. haematobium sites, respectively. There were no positives detected by either microscopy or qPCR in the non-endemic site. Using Bayesian Latent Class Model, which does not use any technique as a gold standard, qPCR showed higher sensitivity (86.4% (PCI: 82.1-90.3)) compared to microscopy (75.6% (PCI: 71.1-80.0)).
conclusionsThis study documents a single day-one sample modified Schistosoma qPCR assay as a powerful improved molecular assay for the detection of schistosomiasis infection that utilize either stool or urine samples. The assay is therefore recommended for monitoring in areas with low infection levels to enable accurate determination of the disease's control endpoint.
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.