Observational studyPLoS neglected tropical diseases2026
Evaluation of six different tests for Schistosoma haematobium diagnosis in a near-elimination setting: A prospective observational diagnostic accuracy study.
Observational study in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06808750 (Schistosoma Haematobium Diagnostic Test Performance in the Elimination Setting Pemba, Tanzania), which is not on this 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.
Schistosoma Haematobium Diagnostic Test Performance in the Elimination Setting Pemba, Tanzania
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate diagnostic tools are needed in schistosomiasis elimination settings to determine prevalence thresholds for assigning or stopping interventions, guide pre- and post-elimination surveillance, and verify whether elimination has been reached. We assessed the accuracy of six different diagnostic tests in Pemba, Tanzania, a setting approaching Schistosoma haematobium elimination. METHODOLOGY: A prospective diagnostic accuracy study was conducted from February to April 2025. From an initial cross-sectional single-day urine filtration (UF)-microscopy screening of 784 students, 69 S. haematobium-positive and 212 negative students were randomly selected for longitudinal follow-up. Four additional urine samples collected over four different days, were available from 262/281 participants and subjected to UF-microscopy. One sample per participant was analysed in parallel with five additional diagnostics: microscopy-based artificial intelligence (AI) scanner, Schistosoma-ITS-2 qPCR, S. haematobium-Dra-1 recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA), Hemastix reagent strips, and up-converting particle lateral flow circulating anodic antigen assay (UCP-LF CAA). We assessed the sensitivity and specificity of the different diagnostics, using 5-day UF-microscopy as reference test. PRINCIPAL
findingsA total of 85/262 participants were S. haematobium-positive using 5-day UF-microscopy. Directly compared with the reference test, the sensitivity for single-sample examination was: AI scanner: 76.7% (95% confidence interval (CI): 71.0-82.5%), qPCR: 76.0% (95% CI: 70.1-81.4%), UF-microscopy: 61.2% (95% CI: 55.3-67.1%), RPA: 56.1% (95% CI: 50.0-62.2%), Hemastix: 44.6% (95% CI: 38.5-50.7%), and UCP-LF CAA: 30.6% (95% CI: 24.9-36.3%). Sensitivity increased with increasing infection intensity. The specificity of all investigated diagnostics was >92%, except for qPCR and RPA. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: In near-elimination settings, multiple-day urine examination with standard UF-microscopy substantially improves case detection but is operationally challenging. For single-sample testing, among the six diagnostics investigated, the AI scanner proved to be the most accurate. Hence, the AI scanner might offer a promising alternative for research, clinical and programme use, but requires further validation in other settings and cost-effectiveness analyses. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT06808750. Registered 08 January 2025, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06808750.
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.