Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41022093›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Microbe2025

Rethinking cholera diagnostic test performance, interpretation, and evaluation: a field-based latent-class analysis in Bangladesh.

Javier Perez-Saez, Taufiqur Rahman Bhuiyan, Sonia T Hegde, Ishtiakul Islam Khan, Md Taufiqul Islam, Zahid Hasan Khan, Mohammad Ashraful Amin, Juan Dent Hulse, Shakeel Ahmed, Mamunur Rashid and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Microbe, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Molecular Methods to DetectmedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Javier Perez-SaezGeneva Centre for Emerging Viral Diseases, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Taufiqur Rahman BhuiyanInfectious Disease Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research (Bangladesh), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Sonia T HegdeDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MA, USA.
Ishtiakul Islam KhanInfectious Disease Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research (Bangladesh), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Md Taufiqul IslamInfectious Disease Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research (Bangladesh), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Zahid Hasan KhanInfectious Disease Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research (Bangladesh), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Mohammad Ashraful AminInfectious Disease Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research (Bangladesh), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Juan Dent HulseInfectious Disease Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research (Bangladesh), Dhaka, Bangladesh; Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MA, USA.
Shakeel AhmedBangladesh Institute of Tropical and Infectious Diseases, Chattogram, Bangladesh.
Mamunur RashidBangladesh Institute of Tropical and Infectious Diseases, Chattogram, Bangladesh.
Rumana RashidBangladesh Institute of Tropical and Infectious Diseases, Chattogram, Bangladesh.
Md Zakir HossainBangladesh Institute of Tropical and Infectious Diseases, Chattogram, Bangladesh.
Ashraful Islam KhanInfectious Disease Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research (Bangladesh), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Firdausi QadriInfectious Disease Division, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research (Bangladesh), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Andrew S AzmanGeneva Centre for Emerging Viral Diseases, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland; Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MA, USA; Division of Tropical and Humanitarian Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: azman@jhu.edu.

Funding

Gates Foundation INV-021879
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate and reliable diagnostics, including rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), are crucial components of cholera control programmes, although their estimated performance has varied greatly across studies. The aim of this study was to assess cholera diagnostics performance accounting for possible sources of variability, including reference assay choice and patient-level and sampling characteristics, and the implications on result interpretation and test performance evaluation.

methodsWe enrolled all individuals aged 1 year and older presenting with suspected cholera seeking care at two health-care facilities in Sitakunda, Bangladesh. All participants (or, if younger than 18 years, their legal guardians) provided written informed consent and were given a short structured questionnaire on patient history and demographics, alongside a rectal swab or stool sample. All stool samples were tested with the CholKit Rapid Diagnostic Test (CholKit RDT; Incepta, Dhaka, Bangladesh), and a subset of samples (all positive RDTs and a random subset of approximately half of negative RDTs) were tested by PCR and culture. Test performance was estimated using a latent-class Bayesian framework accounting for imperfect test performance, incomplete PCR and culture testing, and time-varying changes in cholera incidence. Patient-level factor effects (including age [age 1-4 years vs ≥5 years] and previous antibiotic use) and sampling factor effects (season and testing delays) were estimated, and simulations were used to assess the bias in RDT performance estimates for sensitivity and specificity with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) when using traditional reference assays.

findingsBetween Jan 24, 2021, and Aug 31, 2022, we enrolled 3744 individuals with suspected cholera. Of the 3744 overall participants, 1918 (51·2%) were male and 1826 (48·8%) were female; 1095 (29·2%) were aged 1-4 years and 2649 (70·8%) were 5 years and older. Among the suspected cases of cholera, 692 (18·5%) participants tested positive by the CholKit RDT. Among the RDT-positive samples, 573 (82·8%) also tested positive by PCR, and 450 (65·0%) tested positive by culture. For RDT, PCR, and culture, we estimated a sensitivity of 93·5% (95% CrI 91·3-95·4), 90·3% (88·4-92·1), and 73·7% (70·8-76·5), respectively; and a specificity of 97·3% (96·7-97·8) and 97·2% (96·6-97·8) for RDT and PCR, respectively. Culture specificity was assumed perfect at 100%. We found that younger age (1-4 years), antibiotic use, and testing delays decreased culture sensitivity, but RDT performance remained relatively constant. The RDT positive predictive value ranged from <15% in children aged 1-4 years to >80% in participants 5 years and older, varying greatly across seasons. Simulations of field trials demonstrated underestimation of RDT sensitivity in low prevalence settings when evaluated against PCR, and underestimation of specificity in high prevalence settings regardless of the reference assay.

interpretationOur results provide potential mechanisms leading to the heterogeneous cholera RDT performance estimates in previous studies, including the use of culture as a reference assay. Across various patient and sampling characteristics, CholKit RDT had high performance in this cholera-endemic setting, supporting its use for cholera surveillance and control. Accounting for epidemiologic context is crucial both for individual-level clinical test interpretation, and for the future evaluation of diagnostics such as RDTs.

fundingThe Gates Foundation.

Indexed as

CholeraDiagnostic Tests, RoutineAdolescentAdultBangladeshBayes TheoremChildChild, PreschoolFecesFemaleHumansInfantLatent Class AnalysisMaleMiddle AgedPolymerase Chain Reaction

Identifiers

PMID41022093
PMCPMC12510910

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.