ArticlePloS one2025
Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of the newly introduced and existing malaria tests in Northwest Ethiopia.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of novel Biocredit species-specific LDH-based immunochromatographic assay for Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Point of care performance of the improved BIOCREDIT Ag Pf/Pv (pLDH/pLDH) rapid diagnostic test: a cross-sectional study at a health center setting in Ethiopia.Malaria journal · 2026Article
- Asymptomatic Plasmodium infection and predictors among schoolchildren in Bahir Dar Zuria District, Northwest Ethiopia.Malaria journal · 2025Article
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
backgroundMalaria is an important public health issue in Ethiopia. Accurate malaria diagnosis plays a vital role in effective treatment. However, there is limited data on the diagnostic accuracy of the newly introduced rapid diagnostic test (LDH-based RDT) and existing diagnostic methods.
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the LDH-based RDT and existing diagnostic methods among uncomplicated malaria patients, 2024.
methodsThe health-facility-based cross-sectional study was conducted in Dembia and North Achefer districts of the Amhara region. A systematic sampling technique was employed to recruit 460 febrile patients. Each patient's blood sample was investigated for Plasmodium species by RDT, followed by microscopy by different laboratory professionals. The collected blood film slide was sent to the reference laboratory center, Ethiopian Public Health Institute, for confirmatory analysis. The diagnostic accuracy was assessed, and a kappa value > 0.6 was considered as having good agreement between diagnostic techniques.
resultsThe sensitivity and specificity of pLDH-based RDT were 99.6 and 100% compared to reference laboratory results. There was a very good consensus between pLDH-based RDT and blood film (Kappa: 0.97, p-value = 0.0001). There was also a good consensus between blood film at the local laboratory and pLDH-based RDT (Kappa: 0.748, p-value = 0.0001). However, there was the worst disagreement between clinical diagnosis, pLDH-based RDT, and blood film (Kappa range: -0.987 to -0.739).
conclusionThis study revealed that pLDH-based RDT and microscopy had higher accuracy as per the WHO recommendation standard. This study implied that clinical diagnosis of malaria must be supported either by RDT or microscopy.
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.