ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2025
Usability, acceptability, and cost of the SD BIOLINE Ov16 rapid diagnostic test for onchocerciasis surveillance in endemic communities in the middle belt of Ghana.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies in the Bono Region (middle belt) of Ghana have reported persistent Onchocerca volvulus infection and associated morbidities after nearly three decades of ivermectin treatment. This study aimed to assess the usability, acceptability, and cost of the Ov16 SD BIOLINE rapid diagnostic test (Ov16 RDT) in onchocerciasis surveillance activities in the middle belt of Ghana. METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional study was conducted in 6 endemic communities in the Tain District and Wenchi Municipality. A total of 254 individuals (54% females; median age (range)=31 (5-83) years), agreed to participate in Ov16 RDT (100%), skin-snip microscopy (37%) and nodule palpation (100%). A total of 94 individuals participated in all three diagnostic tests, and post-test interviews were conducted with them, as well as with nine technicians. A cost analysis was also performed based on testing a hypothetical cohort of 400 individuals. PRINCIPAL
findingsSeropositivity of IgG4 antibodies against the Ov16 O. volvulus antigen was 23.6% (60/254, 95%CI = 18.8%-29.2%); microfilarial positivity 11.7% (11/94, 95%CI = 6.7%-19.8%) and nodule positivity 5.5% (14/254, 95%CI = 3.3%-9.0%). Female sex, age over 30 years, and farming occupation were all associated with higher odds of anti-Ov16 seropositivity. Among 5-9-year-olds, anti-Ov16 seropositivity was 11.1% (3/27), microfilarial positivity 23.1% (3/13) and nodule positivity 3.7% (1/27). Most participants and technicians preferred Ov16 RDT because of being less painful and invasive, easier to use and faster. Had 400 participants been tested, the total cost per individual would be US$24 (Ov16 RDT) and US$74 (skin-snip microscopy).
conclusionsOv16 RDT is more acceptable and affordable (a third of the cost) compared to skin-snipping for surveillance activities in transmission hotspots in Ghana.
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.