ArticleInternational journal of STD & AIDS2025
Validation of rapid point-of-care tests for herpes simplex virus-type 2 in rural Tanzania.
Article in International journal of STD & AIDS, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BackgroundHerpes simplex virus-type 2 (HSV-2) affects nearly 500 million people worldwide. Up to 70% of women in Tanzania are infected by age 30. Point-of-care (POC) tests to detect HSV-2 antibodies are commercially available. We validated the performance of two HSV-2 POC tests in women in rural Tanzania.MethodsBlood from 56 women was tested for HSV-2 antibodies by Biogate Labs and OnSite Duo rapid tests and Kalon HSV-2 IgG ELISA. Results obtained from the POC tests were compared with those from the ELISA to determine sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV).ResultsThe Biogate had a sensitivity and specificity of 30.3% [15.6%-48.7%] and 100% [85.2%-100%], respectively. The OnSite Duo had a sensitivity and specificity of 69.7% [51.3%-84.4%] and 87.0% [66.4%-97.2%], respectively. The PPV and NPV for the Biogate was 100% [69.2%-100%] and 50% [44.4%-55.6%], respectively. The OnSite Duo had a PPV and NPV of 88.5% [72.3%-95.8%] and 66.7% [53.8%-77.5%], respectively.ConclusionThese tests had different performance characteristics, with the Biogate having a poor sensitivity and excellent specificity, and the OnSite Duo having a slightly better sensitivity though lower specificity. Validation of POC tests is important, as they can be valuable diagnostic tools in low-resource settings.
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.