ArticlePLOS digital health2025
Performance of a smartphone-based malaria screener in detecting malaria in people living with Sickle cell disease.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Early malaria risk screening in Nigerian minors using AutoML and cluster-based analysis of non-clinical survey data.PLOS digital health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Novel automated digital malaria diagnostic tests are being developed with the advancement of diagnostic tools. Whilst these tools are being evaluated and implemented in the general population, there is the need to focus on special populations such as individuals with Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) who have altered red blood cell morphology and atypical immune responses, which can obscure parasite detection. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of one of such tools, the National Library of Medicine (NLM) malaria screener app in people living with sickle cell disease in a malaria-endemic country, Ghana. A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among SCD patients attending the Sickle Cell Clinic at Korle Bu Teaching Hospital in Accra, Ghana. Following informed consent, whole blood samples were collected and analyzed using the NLM malaria screener app, conventional microscopy, RDT, and Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), with PCR as the reference standard. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of each diagnostic method were compared against PCR results. The NLM app identified the highest number of positive malaria cases, with 110 positive cases (36.2%), while both RDT and microscopy reported the highest number of negatives, with 287 negative cases (94.4%). Compared to PCR, the NLM app demonstrated a sensitivity of 89.5% and a specificity of 67.4%. RDT and microscopy displayed the same sensitivity as the NLM app, each achieving 89.5%. However, while RDT and microscopy had a specificity of 100%, the NLM app had a considerably lower specificity of 67.4%.The NLM malaria screener app shows promise as a preliminary screening tool for malaria in individuals with SCD. However, its lower specificity indicates a need for confirmatory testing to avoid potential overdiagnosis and mismanagement. Enhancements in the app's specificity could further support its utility in rapid and accessible malaria diagnosis for people with SCD, aiding in timely management and treatment.
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.