Observational studyMalaria journal2025
Assessing the accuracy of the recording and reporting of malaria rapid diagnostic test results in four African countries: methods and key results.
Observational study in Malaria journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The accuracy of recording malaria rapid diagnostic test (RDT) results in public health facilities in Benin; results from the MaCRA project.Malaria journal · 2026Observational
- Positive tests are all alike, every negative test is negative in its own way: lack of confidence in negative malaria rapid diagnostic tests in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.Malaria journal · 2026Article
- Accuracy of recording of malaria rapid diagnostic tests in Côte d'Ivoire.Malaria journal · 2026Observational
- Concordance of rapid diagnostic test results between health facility registers and health management information systems: a multi-country evaluation.Malaria journal · 2025Observational
- Characteristics of healthcare workers and health facilities associated with inaccurate recording of malaria rapid diagnostic test results: a multi-country study.Malaria journal · 2025Observational
- Article
- Accuracy of recording of malaria rapid diagnostic test results in Uganda.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- Accuracy of recording and reporting of malaria rapid diagnostic tests in Nigeria.Malaria journal · 2025Article
- Are malaria rapid diagnostic test results stable over time to support verification of surveillance data?Malaria journal · 2025Observational
- Evaluating the performance of an artificial intelligence-based electronic reader for malaria rapid diagnostic tests across Benin, Côte d'Ivoire, Nigeria and Uganda.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
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRapid diagnostic test (RDT) results are the foundation of both case management and malaria surveillance across sub-Saharan Africa. However, RDT results may be misrecorded in health facility registers by healthcare workers (HCWs), either unintentionally or deliberately, for example, to justify treatment based on clinical judgment. A multi-country evaluation was conducted to quantify the extent of RDT misrecording and identify factors associated with recording and reporting accuracy. This report summarizes the study's methods, key findings, and implications for improving malaria RDT data quality.
methodsA mixed-methods observational study was implemented in Benin, Côte d'Ivoire, Nigeria, and Uganda in 2023. At participating health facilities, images of RDTs were captured at the point of care and later reviewed by a trained, external panel. Agreement between the panel's interpretation and the result recorded in the register was assessed using weighted mean Cohen's kappa (κ). Secondary objectives included identifying factors associated with inaccurate recording, assessing the durability of RDT results after 1 month of storage, evaluating accuracy of data obtained from the District Health Information System 2 (DHIS2), and measuring the observer effect of the start of the study on test positivity rates (TPR) reported to DHIS2.
resultsA total of 102,337 RDT results was observed. Agreement between register-recorded results and the external panel was high, ranging from κ = 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75, 0.85) in Nigeria to κ = 0.88 (95% CI 0.84, 0.92) in Benin. HCWs were more likely to misrecord results as positive (range: 5.1-7.3%) than negative (range: 0.7-3.7%), and patient age was associated with misrecording results in all countries except Nigeria. After the study began in Côte d'Ivoire, TPRs reported from the DHIS2 declined significantly more in study than control facilities (rate ratio: 0.80, 95% CI 0.76, 0.84).
conclusionsAlthough HCWs generally recorded RDT results accurately, the disproportionately higher proportion of results misrecorded as positive raises concern about possible intentional misreporting. The observed TPR decrease after study onset in Côte d'Ivoire suggests some HCWs can be motivated to reduce misrecording and improve the quality of malaria case management and surveillance data.
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.