ReviewJournal of public health in Africa2025
Evaluating alternatives to the Widal test for typhoid fever diagnosis in developing countries: A targeted literature review.
Review in Journal of public health in Africa, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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: Typhoid disease, caused by Aim: The study evaluates the utility of the Widal test for the diagnosis of typhoid infections and emphasises the need for a better diagnostic modality in endemic regions. Setting: The study included research conducted in developing countries where typhoid fever is endemic. Method: A targeted literature review was conducted utilising the MEDLINE and Embase databases on 19 October 2022, encompassing publications from the preceding 10 years. Manual searches were executed using Google Scholar and the Google Search Engine on 02 November 2022. The initial search yielded 657 articles, of which 20 met the inclusion criteria and were subsequently incorporated into the final review. Results: The mean sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of the Widal test in this study were 62.94 ± 17.83 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 49.23-76.64); 73.31 ± 18.75 (95% CI: 58.89-87.73); 58.85 ± 40.07 (95% CI: 16.80-100.90) and 75.96 ± 25.93 (95% CI: 46.08-100.45), respectively. Conclusion: The different studies in this review have shown that the Widal test performs poorly in identifying typhoid infections compared to other rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs). In addition, the current alternative RDTs are not accurate enough to reliably identify or rule out typhoid infection. Contributions: A shift in diagnostic approach for typhoid fever in developing countries is required and an accurate and feasible point-of-care test is urgently needed.
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.