ArticleMalaria journal2025
Investigating the Abbott-Bioline™ malaria antigen Pf/Pv rapid diagnostic test.
Article in Malaria journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Strong Cross-Reactivity of Anti-Plasmodium falciparum pLDH Monoclonal Antibodies With Plasmodium malariae pLDH in the Abbott Bioline Malaria Ag P.f/P.f/P.v Rapid Diagnostic Test.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2026Article
- Field and laboratory evaluation of Abbott-Bioline™ Malaria Ag Pf/Pv RDT performance in a high-transmission setting: contrasting results with a low-endemic area.Malaria journal · 2026Article
- Field performance of the SD Bioline Malaria Ag P.f. rapid diagnostic test among children under five in Nigeria: insights from the 2021 Malaria Indicator Survey.Malaria journal · 2026Article
- The underperforming Abbott-Bioline Malaria Ag P.f/P.v rapid diagnostic test: a whiter shade of pale - where the truth is not plain to see.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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid Diagnostic Tests (RDT) have become an essential tool for the control of malaria worldwide. Their simplicity of use and their reliability make them ideal for the diagnosis of malaria in endemic areas. Numerous brands are now available on the market. In South East Asia, where both Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax are prevalent, the Abbott-Bioline™ Malaria Ag Pf/Pv rapid diagnostic test (for the detection of Pf HRP2 and Pv LDH) is deployed widely but, after years of satisfactory performance, its recent sensitivity has been questioned after multiple false negative results were reported. METHODS AND
resultsThe study was conducted between October 2024 and January 2025. A field comparison with the First Response
conclusionThe Abbott-Bioline™ Malaria Ag Pf/Pv RDT that were obtained in 2024 failed to detect microscopically confirmed cases of malaria and is not fit for purpose. This test should no longer be used and should be replaced by one with adequate performance.
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.