ArticleMalaria journal2026
Evaluation of malaria rapid diagnostic test kit performance in a high-transmission setting: a facility-based cross-sectional study in rural Ghana.
Article 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe World Health Organisation's "Test, Treat, and Track" initiative for malaria underscores the need for accurate diagnosis to guide effective treatment and reduce drug misuse. In Ghana, about 74% of malaria testing relies on rapid diagnostic test (RDT) kits, including the MERISCREEN Malaria Pf HRP-II Ag
methodsA facility-based cross-sectional study was conducted in six health facilities from 1 to 31st July 2024. A total of 404 children under five years were recruited using systematic sampling. Blood samples were collected and tested for malaria parasite using both the microscope and RDT (MERISCREEN Malaria Pf HRP-II Ag
resultsThe sensitivity and specificity of the mRDT were 98.1 (95% CI 92.6-99.7) and 92.6% (95% CI 88.9-95.2), respectively, with PPV and NPV being 82.4% (95% CI 75.8-87.5) and 99.1% (95% CI 96.6-99.8), respectively. The overall accuracy of the MERISCREEN Pf HRP-II test kit was 94.8%.
conclusionThe real-world performance parameters observed for the RDT kits were marginally lower than manufacturer-reported values. With an overall accuracy of nearly 95%, test outcomes of prequalified RDT kits can be deemed reliable for guiding malaria treatment in areas lacking microscopy services. However, strict adherence to storage guidelines, continuous user training, and periodic quality assessments are essential to maintain kit performance.
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.