Observational studyMalaria journal2026
Accuracy of recording of malaria rapid diagnostic tests in Côte d'Ivoire.
Observational study in Malaria journal, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate malaria diagnosis and reporting are critical for effective case management and surveillance. In sub-Saharan Africa, rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are widely used to support clinical decision-making. However, limited data exist on the accuracy of recorded RDT results reported to health information systems. This study assessed the accuracy of recording of malaria RDT results documented in health facility registers in Côte d'Ivoire, as part of a multi-country evaluation.
methodsA mixed-methods, observational study was conducted across 16 primary health care facilities in two regions of Côte d'Ivoire between August and December 2023. For each patient tested for malaria, a digital image of the RDT cassette was captured and linked to the corresponding register entry. An independent panel of trained reviewers interpreted the RDT images, which served as the reference standard. Agreement between panel and register results was assessed using percent agreement and Cohen's kappa (κ). The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for the register result. Meta-regression was used to identify facility, healthcare worker (HCW), and patient characteristics associated with agreement.
resultsOf 11,161 matched RDT images and register entries, 57.9% were interpreted as positive by the external panel. Overall agreement between panel and register results was strong (κ = 0.83, 95% CI 0.77, 0.88), with a PPV of 90.7% and NPV of 94.8%. However, negative or invalid results were more frequently incorrectly recorded as positive (5.9%) than the reverse (2.0%). Recording errors occurred more often among patients noted in the register with a diagnosis of malaria or antimalarial prescription, suggesting potential systematic bias. District, patient volume, HCW cadre, and education level of the health worker were associated with agreement. Notably, HCWs who frequently performed or recorded RDTs had lower agreement levels. Most HCWs believed that a negative RDT could miss malaria and that treatment could still be warranted.
conclusionThe results from the study demonstrate that RDT results are recorded fairly accurately in Côte d'Ivoire. However, the disproportionate misclassification of negative results as positive may distort malaria surveillance data and test positivity rates. Strategies such as regular comparison of RDT cassettes with register entries, enhanced HCW training, and reinforcement of adherence to diagnostic guidelines may improve data quality and support evidence-based decision-making.
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.