ReviewFrontiers in public health2026
Utilizing rapid diagnostic tests in infectious disease surveillance and response in humanitarian emergencies.
Review in Frontiers in public health, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: As of 2024, approximately 2 billion people live in conflict-affected regions worldwide, with an estimated 108 million forcibly displaced. Populations affected by humanitarian emergencies (HEs) are at increased risk of outbreaks of epidemic-prone diseases and significant morbidity and mortality. In these settings, access to laboratory diagnostic capabilities may be limited or challenging. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) represent an essential modality for ensuring timely diagnostic testing to differentiate among infectious diseases and respond with appropriate treatment in HEs. A general landscape review of RDTs for operational use for infectious disease surveillance and response in these settings is warranted. Content: We reviewed white and gray literature to explore the availability, technical characteristics, and operational strengths and weaknesses of RDTs available for the diagnosis of selected epidemic-prone infectious diseases in HEs. We documented planned development of RDTs. Finally, we reflect on how barriers to more widespread use of RDTs in HEs could be addressed, along with potential complementary use of other near point-of-care testing, to guide infectious disease diagnosis in HEs. Discussion: Low-cost, easy to use, and accurate RDTs for epidemic-prone diseases are an integral component of infectious disease surveillance, outbreak detection, and response efforts in HEs. Field evaluations specifically in HEs, continued work to attain WHO pre-qualification, and country-level planning on operational use of RDTs are important to increasing the use of RDTs for infectious diseases in HEs.
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.