ArticleCureus2025
Evaluation of the Performance of Various Diagnostic Modalities Available for the Detection of Scrub Typhus in Acute Undifferentiated Febrile Illness (AUFI) Cases at a Teaching Hospital in North Chhattisgarh, India.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDue to the lack of adequate data on the effectiveness of diagnostic methods and the ambiguous clinical symptoms that overlap with other febrile illnesses, diagnosing scrub typhus is difficult. This study aims to compare the accuracy of various investigations required for the diagnosis of scrub typhus like immunoglobulin G/immunoglobulin M (IgG/IgM) rapid test, IgM enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from a patient's serum.
methodsThis is a prospective study that includes all clinically suspected patients who visited the Outpatient Department (OPD) of Medicine and were admitted to the Medicine wards and Intensive Care Units of Rajmata Shrimati Devendra Kumari Singhdeo Government Medical College, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, India. The patients' samples were tested initially using the IgG/IgM rapid test, further confirmed by ELISA, and then subjected to RT-PCR for final confirmation.
resultsA total of 1,620 cases of acute undifferentiated febrile illness were tested, of which 82 tested positive for scrub typhus IgM rapid test. These 82 cases were further tested for confirmation using IgM ELISA, which showed 110 positive results. Additionally, RT-PCR was applied to all 1,620 samples using the DIAGsure Tropical Fever Panel Kit (3B BlackBio Dx Limited, Bhopal, India), resulting in 98 samples testing positive for scrub typhus. Both the ELISA and the rapid diagnostic test offer high capacity for discrimination, with sensitivity and specificity of 92.40%, 93.18%, and 99.20%, 98.17%, respectively (10.9% of cases came positive in serology which was negative in RT-PCR). It can be due to its nonspecific binding with antibodies of other febrile illnesses such as malaria, enteric fever, pulmonary tuberculosis, leptospirosis, etc. Conclusion: RT-PCR has shown excellent results with a sensitivity of >95% and specificity of >99%. Given its high sensitivity and specificity, along with clinical findings, RT-PCR is highly effective in detecting scrub typhus, especially for diagnosing early stages of the disease in cases of acute febrile illness with a duration of less than seven days. In reference labs, RT-PCR is the primary method for confirmation. This paper offers a thorough assessment of all the diagnostic tests for scrub typhus that are now accessible in a setting with limited resources, such as our north Chhattisgarh region.
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.