ArticleThe Journal of infectious diseases2022
Diagnostic Performance of Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification and Ultrasensitive Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Malaria Screening Among Pregnant Women in Kenya.
Article in The Journal of infectious diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Test accuracy of loop-mediated isothermal amplification for schistosomiasis in low endemicity areas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2025Pooled it
- Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) test in the detection of uncomplicated malaria in pregnancy: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.Malaria journal · 2022Pooled it
- Performance of ultra-sensitive malaria rapid diagnostic test to detect Plasmodium falciparum infection in pregnant women in Kinshasa, the Democratic Republic of the Congo.Malaria journal · 2023Article
- Article
- Malaria in pregnancy (MiP) studies assessing the clinical performance of highly sensitive rapid diagnostic tests (HS-RDT) for Plasmodium falciparum detection.Malaria journal · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundScreen-and-treat strategies with sensitive diagnostic tests may reduce malaria-associated adverse pregnancy outcomes. We conducted a diagnostic accuracy study to evaluate new point-of-care tests to screen pregnant women for malaria at their first antenatal visit in western Kenya.
methodsConsecutively women were tested for Plasmodium infection by expert microscopy, conventional rapid diagnostic test (cRDT), ultra sensitive RDT (usRDT), and loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP). Photoinduced electron-transfer polymerase chain reaction (PET-PCR) served as the reference standard. Diagnostic performance was calculated and modelled at low parasite densities.
resultsBetween May and September 2018, 172 of 482 screened participants (35.7%) were PET-PCR positive. Relative to PET-PCR, expert microscopy was least sensitive (40.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 32.7%-47.9%), followed by cRDT (49.4%; 95% CI, 41.7%-57.1), usRDT (54.7%; 95% CI, 46.9%-62.2%), and LAMP (68.6%; 95% CI, 61.1%-75.5%). Test sensitivities were comparable in febrile women (n = 90). Among afebrile women (n = 392), the geometric-mean parasite density was 29 parasites/µL and LAMP (sensitivity = 61.9%) and usRDT (43.2%) detected 1.74 (95% CI, 1.31-2.30) and 1.21 (95% CI, 88-2.21) more infections than cRDT (35.6%). Per our model, tests performed similarly at densities >200 parasites/µL. At 50 parasites/µL, the sensitivities were 45%, 56%, 62%, and 74% with expert microscopy, cRDT, usRDT, and LAMP, respectively.
conclusionsThis first-generation usRDT provided moderate improvement in detecting low-density infections in afebrile pregnant women compared to cRDTs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.