ArticlePeerJ2025
A proof-of-concept point-of-care test for the serodiagnosis of human amebic liver abscess.
Article in PeerJ, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Amebic liver abscess (ALA), caused by an extraintestinal invasion of the virulent protozoan Methods: Both methods were tested to assess their diagnostic performance using a total of 253 serum samples. These came from ALA patients ( Results: Amebiasis-ICT exhibited 100% (95% confidential interval (CI) [75.3-100.0]) sensitivity and 97.1% (95% CI [94.1-98.8]) specificity, whereas ELISA gave the same sensitivity (100% 95% CI [75.3 -100.0]) and slightly lower specificity (95.8% 95% CI [92.5-98.0]). There were no significant differences in sensitivity and specificity between the two tests (Exact McNemar's test; Conclusion: This ICT tool using simulated whole-blood samples has a high possibility of being used with real whole blood. Therefore, since there is no need to separate serum, this can be considered an innovative diagnostic tool to replace serum-based ELISA in clinics and field surveys in remote areas where medical facilities are limited.
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.