ArticlePloS one2026
Diagnostic performance of four hepatitis-B surface antigen conformité Européenne (CE) marked and one WHO prequalified rapid diagnostic tests in Uganda.
Article in PloS one, 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
backgroundGlobally, over 254 million people are infected with chronic Hepatitis B (HBV). Eighty million of these reside in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). HBV claims an estimated one million lives annually. Efforts to eradicate it from SSA have been slow, partly due to a lack of affordable, accurate screening tools. The diagnostic accuracy of the commonly used rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) in SSA is poorly understood; hence a need to characterize the validity of five RDTs being used for HBV diagnosis using the Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) serologic marker.
methodsIn this case-control study with 1:1 case: control matching, and a prevalence of 50%, 200 samples of residual donor blood were tested using RDTs against the reference test Fortress Diagnostic, 2016 Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA). They were subsequently subjected to five RDT kits: the SD Bioline (Abbott Diagnostics Korea Inc.), a World Health Organization (WHO) pre-qualified test kit, and four Conformité Européenne (CE) Marked RDTs: One-Step, NOVA (Atlas Link Technology), Astracare (Astra Biotech GmbH), and Accurate (Pharmagen Uganda Ltd). Sensitivity and specificity were computed using ELISA as the reference test. The Statistical Program for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for statistical analysis.
resultsAll five RDT brands demonstrated a sensitivity of 93% (95% CI 93%- 93%). Their specificity, however, ranged from 95% (95% CI 94.9%- 97.8%) for Astracare to 98% (95% CI 94.9%- 98.0%) for SD Bioline.
conclusionAll the RDTs demonstrated good specificity and good performance characteristics. CE-marked RDTs thus present an opportunity for massive screening of the at-risk populations in the WHO-led campaign to eliminate HBV as a public health threat in Uganda and other low-resource settings by 2030.
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.