ArticleScientific reports2026
Decentralised rapid diagnostic tests enable cholera diagnosis by non-laboratory health workers during outbreaks in Cameroon.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cholera has re-emerged as a major global public health emergency, with reported cases and deaths tripling between 2022 and 2025 especially in Africa, due to climate shocks, population displacement, fragile water and sanitation systems, and delays in laboratory confirmation. Early detection is critical to interrupt transmission and reduce mortality, underscoring the need for decentralised point-of-care diagnostics. We conducted a prospective field evaluation of three cholera rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs): SD Bioline Cholera Ag O1/O139, Crystal VC O1, and Cholkit, during active cholera outbreaks in Cameroon. Tests were performed on fresh stool samples by laboratory technicians and by non-laboratory health workers at primary health-care facilities. Diagnostic performance was assessed using PCR as the reference standard. In a subset of samples, RDTs were also performed after alkaline peptone water (APW) enrichment to assess its effect on diagnostic accuracy. Inter-operator agreement and ease of use were evaluated. Among 492 suspected cholera cases enrolled, 377 samples had PCR results available for analysis. When performed at the point of care, RDT sensitivity ranged from 88% to 95%, comparable to laboratory-based testing, while specificity ranged from 72% to 85%. APW enrichment was associated with a consistent reduction in sensitivity across all three RDTs and reduced specificity for SD Bioline. Inter-operator agreement was high (Cohen's κ 0·81-0·89). More than 80% of end users reported that RDTs were easy to use under outbreak conditions. Cholera RDTs demonstrated high sensitivity, strong inter-operator reliability, and operational feasibility when deployed directly on fresh stool samples by non-laboratory staff. Integrating RDTs into decentralised surveillance systems, without APW enrichment, can accelerate outbreak detection and support timely response in high-burden, resource-limited 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.