ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparison of techniques and markers to distinguish Plasmodium falciparum recrudescence from new infection in Rwanda.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate estimation of antimalarial drug efficacy against P. falciparum requires PCR correction to distinguish recrudescence from new infection in recurrent infections. Here, we compared two different genotyping techniques and different decision algorithms used for PCR correction using samples collected in a Therapeutic Efficacy Study (TES) conducted in Rwanda in 2018. We first optimized an assay to genotype four microsatellites by capillary electrophoresis and assessed its sensitivity in detecting minority clones with laboratory parasite strain mixtures. We then analyzed patient samples by capillary electrophoresis using msp1, msp2, glurp and microsatellites (length-polymorphic markers) and amplicon deep sequencing using cpmp, ama1, cpp and csp (SNP-rich markers), and assessed their diversity and allelic frequency. We classified the recurrent infections as recrudescence or new infection based on different marker combinations and decision algorithms (WHO, 2/3, Bayesian algorithm). Among microsatellites, TA40 and PfPK2 had the highest sensitivity in detecting minority clones. Msp2/3D7, glurp and SNP-rich markers had the highest genetic diversity and lowest allelic frequencies. The WHO algorithm identified the fewest recrudescences across all marker combinations, while the 2/3 identified the most. The Bayesian algorithm yielded intermediate results. Replacing glurp with any of the microsatellites or using SNP-rich markers did not significantly alter recrudescence estimates. Amplicon sequencing of SNP-rich markers provided the most consistent results regardless of the decision algorithm used and therefore holds great potential for reliable PCR correction. Additionally, probabilistic approaches may provide more robust results compared to match counting algorithms; however, they require rigorous validation with datasets from different transmission 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.