ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Evaluation of NxTek™ Eliminate Malaria-PF test and biocredit rapid diagnostic tests for detecting Plasmodium species in Southern Ethiopia.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) play an essential role in the prompt diagnosis of malaria in settings where using microscopy is not feasible. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of NxTek™ Eliminate Malaria-Pf test, Biocredit RDTs Pf(pLDH/HRP2) and Pf/Pv(pLDH/pLDH) for the detection of Plasmodium species.
methodsA health facility-based cross-sectional study was conducted from September to November 2024 in 384 malaria-suspected febrile study subjects at Dilla Zuria health facility. Venous blood samples were collected for malaria diagnosis using microscopy, RDTs, and quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (qPCR). Sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive value, and accuracy were calculated using microscopy and qPCR as reference standards.
resultsUsing microscopy as the reference standard, the NxTek™ Eliminate Malaria-Pf test demonstrated a sensitivity of 87.6% and a specificity of 91.3% for the detection of P. falciparum. The Biocredit Pf/Pv (pLDH/pLDH) RDT exhibited a sensitivity of 97.9% and specificity of 97.4% for P. falciparum, and a sensitivity of 94.5% and specificity of 97.5% for P. vivax. The Biocredit Pf (pLDH/HRP2) RDT showed sensitivity and specificity values of 97.4% and 97.5%, respectively. In comparison, the SD Bioline RDT yielded a sensitivity of 51.3% and specificity of 93.2% for P. falciparum, and sensitivity and specificity of 86.3% and 96.5%, respectively, for P. vivax. When using quantitative PCR (qPCR) as the reference standard, the Biocredit Pf/Pv (pLDH/pLDH) RDT demonstrated a sensitivity of 95.5% and specificity of 96.4% for P. falciparum, and sensitivity and specificity of 90.8% and 99.1%, respectively, for P. vivax.
conclusionThe Biocredit RDTs outperformed conventional RDTs in both sensitivity and specificity and met the World Health Organization’s (WHO) diagnostic criteria. These results support their utility in routine malaria diagnosis, particularly in resource-limited endemic settings.
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.