ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2026
Diagnostic Accuracy of a Simple and Rapid Diagnostic Test RLDT for the Detection of Cholera in Bangladesh.
Article in Open forum 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The rising incidence and case fatality rates of cholera outbreaks underscore the need for better diagnostic tests for early detection and confirmation of the outbreak to enable rapid responses and obtain reliable surveillance data. We evaluated the Rapid LAMP-based Diagnostic Test (RLDT) for detecting cholera to determine if this test has the potential to fill the gap. Methods: This study included training and evaluation of RLDT in the cholera reference laboratory in Bangladesh. Stool samples collected from suspected cholera patients seeking care at the icddr,b hospital, Dhaka, were tested using cholera RLDT, microbiological culture, Rapid Diagnostic Test (RDT crystal VC O1, O139), and PCR and compared. Results: Out of 205 cases analyzed, 136 (66%) were positive for cholera by RLDT, 131 (64%) by PCR, 92 (45%) by culture, and 90 (44%) by RDT. The RLDT was highly specific, as all the culture positives were positive by RLDT, except 1 (sensitivity of 99%), and could detect all the PCR positives except 2 (sensitivity of 97%). Almost perfect agreement was found between RLDT and PCR (kappa 0.9). Rapid LAMP-based Diagnostic Test being more sensitive than culture and RDT, the agreement was moderate (kappa 0.6 and 0.5, respectively). Rapid Diagnostic Test missed detection of cholera in 11 samples, positive by other tests. The accuracy of RLDT was 100% in detecting cholera from water samples. Conclusions: Rapid LAMP-based Diagnostic Test was specific and sensitive, detecting 21% more cholera-positive cases than culture or RDT. Rapid LAMP-based Diagnostic Test has the potential to improve the rapid detection of cholera in outbreak situations and for surveillance data.
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.