ArticleBMJ open2025
Diagnostic performance of the Hightop Rapid Diagnostic Test for the detection of anti
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nanoparticle-based biosensor integrated with CRISPR/Cas12b platform for sensitive and visual identification of hepatitis B virus pregenomic RNA in chronic hepatitis B patients.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- Technological innovations and breakthrough pathways in syphilis diagnosis: addressing global resurgence and the journey toward elimination.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe study was conducted to assess the diagnostic performance of the Hightop Syphilis Rapid Diagnostic Test (RDT) in comparison with the ELISA test used as a reference method.
designA laboratory-based cross-sectional and comparative study was conducted to assess the diagnostic performance of the Hightop Syphilis RDT.
settingBlood samples obtained from adult participants in eight health facilities were analysed at the National Public Health Laboratory (NPHL), Ministry of Public Health, Yaounde, Cameroon.
participantsFrom 29 April to 25 August 2023, 583 adult participants of both sexes (aged ≥21 years), including both syphilis positive and syphilis negative, were recruited consecutively in eight health facilities in eight regions of Cameroon. OUTCOME MEASURES: Blood samples were screened for the detection of anti-
resultsOf the 583 samples tested, the Hightop Syphilis RDT revealed a sensitivity of 84.6% (95% CI: 74.8% to 91.1%) and specificity of 98.5% (95% CI: 97.5% to 99.1%). The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 84.6% (95% CI: 74.8% to 91.1%) and 98.5% (95% CI: 97.5% to 99.1%), respectively. Regarding the stratification of diagnostic performance by clinical stage, the test showed a sensitivity of 100.0% (95% CI: 71.51% to 100.0%) and specificity of 99.06% (95% CI: 94.86% to 99.98%). The PPV and NPV were 91.67% (95% CI: 61.00% to 98.72%) and 100.0% (95% CI: 96.55% to 100.0%), respectively, in symptomatic individuals. Among asymptomatic individuals, sensitivity was 97.56% (95% CI: 87.14% to 99.94%) and specificity was 100.0% (95% CI: 99.14% to 100.0%). The PPV and NPV were 100.0% (95% CI: 91.19% to 100.0%) and 99.77% (95% CI: 98.40% to 99.97%), respectively.
conclusionsThe Hightop Syphilis RDT demonstrated adequate diagnostic performance, particularly among symptomatic individuals, supporting its utility as a reliable tool for syphilis detection in clinical settings.
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.