ArticleMalaria journal2025
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.
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 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.
- Beyond elimination; addressing challenges in maintaining the malaria elimination status in Suriname.Malaria journal · 2026Review
- 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
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
Abstract
The Abbott-Bioline™ malaria antigen Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax rapid diagnostic test (Abbott-Bioline™ Malaria Ag P.f/P.v RDT) is used widely in the Greater Mekong Subregion. It is approved by the World Health Organization (WHO) and deployed on a large scale in the regional malaria elimination programmes. Following reports of false-negative test results from field-workers, the Abbott-Bioline™ Malaria Ag P.f/P.v RDT was compared with microscopy in 187 persons with fever during a vivax malaria outbreak in Myanmar. Among them 11 tested positive for P. vivax using the Abbott RDT, while 46 were diagnosed with P. vivax malaria by microscopy. The sensitivity of the Abbott RDTs among febrile patients was 0.24 (95% CI 0.12-0.36) with a specificity of 1.0. Twenty-eight (61%) of the 46 patients had a parasite count of ≥200/µL, the WHO-recommended lower limit of detection for RDTs. Among these 11 were detected by the Abbott malaria RDT, a sensitivity at this threshold of 0.39, (95% CI 0.21-0.57). The colour band denoting positivity on the malaria RDT was often absent. The low intensity of the RDT colour band was confirmed objectively using ImageJ
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.