ArticleScientific reports2025
A reliable model to strengthen community-based water quality monitoring and surveillance via field test kits.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Meteorological Influence on Drinking Water Quality: Microbial Variability in Groundwater Wells and Piped Distribution Networks from Western Romania.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Automated machine learning achieves accurate water quality prediction with reduced parameter requirements.Scientific reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Field test kits are indispensable tools for strengthening community-based water quality monitoring and surveillance programs. However, the reliability of field test kits is important, as these kits are being used to test large number of water sources in developing countries due to insufficient laboratory resources. A field test kit validation protocol is essentially needed to strengthen the quality control mechanism during the kit production and procurement stages. The technical efficiency of a kit is the most important criterion for assessing its sensitivity and specificity to accurately detect the parameter of interest. The adequacy, safety and information to users are also very significant aspects to ensure effective and safe usage of kits. In the present study, arsenic field test kits were evaluated in the laboratory as well as at field by performing in situ testing. Statistical weight was assigned to each parameter, such as technical efficiency, adequacy, safety and information, to estimate the 'individual parameter weight', and then an importance factor was applied to estimate the cumulative parameter weight to assess the effectiveness of the field test kits. The overall arsenic testing efficiency, in the case of the most effective kit when used in the field, was estimated at 55.0% when compared with accurate testing results in the ± 5% range and 90.0% when kit findings were compared with accurate testing results in the ± 10% range. Considering variable and dynamic field conditions, variation tolerance between kit results in the field and accurate laboratory results in the ± 10% range seems to be appropriate. This study provides inputs for the development of a protocol for the reliability assessment of field test kits.
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.