Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41126265›Full record

Observational studyMalaria journal2025

Are malaria rapid diagnostic test results stable over time to support verification of surveillance data?

Corine Ngufor, Kim A Lindblade, Sunday Atobatele, Arthur Mpimbaza, Idelphonse Ahogni, Nelson Ssewante, Ese Akpiroroh, Augustin Kpemasse, Onyebuchi Okoro, Bosco Agaba and 3 more

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
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

13 authors.

Corine Ngufor *Centre de Recherche Entomologique de Cotonou, Cotonou, Benin. corine.ngufor@lshtm.ac.uk.
Kim A Lindblade *PMI Insights Project/PATH, Geneva, Switzerland.
Sunday AtobateleSydani Group, Abuja, Nigeria.
Arthur MpimbazaChild Health and Development Centre, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Idelphonse AhogniCentre de Recherche Entomologique de Cotonou, Cotonou, Benin.
Nelson SsewanteChild Health and Development Centre, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Ese AkpirorohSydani Group, Abuja, Nigeria.
Augustin KpemasseProgramme National de Lutte Contre Le Paludisme, Cotonou, Benin.
Onyebuchi OkoroNational Malaria Elimination Programme, Abuja, Nigeria.
Bosco AgabaNational Malaria Control Division, Kampala, Uganda.
Shawna CooperAudere, Seattle, WA, USA.
Kevin GriffithUnited States President's Malaria Initiative, Washington, DC, USA.
Michael HumesUnited States President's Malaria Initiative, Washington, DC, USA.

Funding

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation INV-043942United States Agency for International Development No. 7200AA20CA00031
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have improved malaria case management by enabling point-of-care confirmation of infection, particularly in low-resource settings. In addition to clinical use, RDT results recorded in health facility registers are a critical component of national malaria surveillance systems. Recently, national programmes have explored using stored RDT cassettes to validate register data. However, manufacturers caution that results should be read within 15-30 min, raising concerns about result validity after this period. This study evaluated the stability of RDT results over a one-month period to assess whether stored cassettes can reliably reflect initial test outcomes.

methodsA prospective, observational study was conducted in 48 health facilities across Benin, Nigeria, and Uganda from June to September 2023. A digital artificial intelligence (AI)-powered RDT reader (HealthPulse, Audere, Seattle WA USA) was used to photograph RDTs immediately after interpretation by health workers and again at one week and one month. RDTs were stored under typical health facility conditions during the study. Images were independently interpreted by a trained panel, with results categorized as positive, negative, invalid, or uninterpretable. Only RDTs with valid interpretations at all three time points were included in the final analysis. Positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) were calculated to measure the accuracy of results from stored RDTs relative to the initial interpretation.

resultsOut of 54,251 RDTs captured, 45,155 (83.2%) met inclusion criteria. At one month, 95.1% of initially positive RDTs remained positive, and 95.3% of initially negative RDTs remained negative. The PPV of a positive result at one month was 96.3% (95% CI 96.1, 96.5), while the NPV of a negative result was 93.8% (95% CI 93.4, 94.1). Most result changes occurred within the first week. Faint lines were associated with higher rates of change in both directions; 26.8% changing from positive to negative and 48.1% changing from negative to positive. Stability of results also varied across RDT products and specific test lines.

conclusionsStored RDT cassettes maintain high result stability over one month and can serve as a reliable reference to verify health facility records. Result changes were linked to premature interpretation, faint lines or product- or line-specific characteristics. Adherence to manufacturer-recommended read times may reduce the proportion of RDTs that change from negative to positive. These findings support the utility of stored RDTs in improving data quality and rational antimalarial use in malaria-affected settings.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Tests, RoutineEpidemiological MonitoringMalariaBeninHumansNigeriaProspective StudiesRapid Diagnostic TestsTime FactorsUgandaBeninMalariaNigeriaRapid diagnostic testsStabilitySurveillanceUganda

Identifiers

PMID41126265
PMCPMC12542119

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.