ArticleMalaria journal2025
Accuracy of recording of malaria rapid diagnostic test results in Uganda.
Article in Malaria journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMalaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have been critical in promoting the rational use of antimalarials and strengthening malaria surveillance. However, the accuracy of routinely reported RDT results in Uganda remains unclear. The study's objective was to measure the level of agreement between healthcare workers (HCWs) and an external panel's RDT results among lower-level public health facilities in Busoga and Lango regions, Uganda.
methodsA prospective study was conducted in 16 public health facilities in four purposively selected districts in Uganda. At each study site, images of all RDTs were taken as soon as the HCW had finished interpreting the test results and uploaded into HealthPulse (Audere, Seattle, WA USA), a digital RDT reader. Corresponding patient data was captured from the outpatient department (OPD) register, including demographics and RDT test results. RDT images were sent to a trained, external panel for interpretation. Cohen's kappa statistic (κ) was used to determine agreement. The associations between characteristics of health facilities, HCWs and RDTs and the level of agreement were analysed using meta-analytical approaches.
resultsFrom June to November 2023, 40,049 RDT images were captured, of which 37,137 (92.7%) were included in the analysis. Overall, the test positivity rate based on OPD records was 61.8%. The overall agreement was strong (κ 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76, 0.85). Where disagreement occurred, HCWs misrecorded more RDT results as positive (7.2%) than negative (1.9%). Agreement was higher in Busoga (κ 0.86, 95% CI 0.83, 0.88) compared to Lango (κ 0.78, 95% CI 0.75, 0.81). Lower agreement levels were also associated with certain RDT products and RDTs with faint lines.
conclusionThe study found a strong level of agreement between HCWs' RDT results and an external panel. However, significant proportions of results were misrecorded as positive or negative, particularly in the Lango region. Targeted interventions, such as RDT validation exercises and tailored refresher training, are recommended to enhance RDT reporting accuracy in Uganda.
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.