SynthesisRevista peruana de medicina experimental y salud publica
Systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of thick smear compared to polymerase chain reaction for pregnancy-associated malaria, 2010-2022.
Synthesis in Revista peruana de medicina experimental y salud publica. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic role of Sysmex hematology analyzer in the detection of malaria: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of the prevalence of malaria associated with pregnancy in Colombia 2000-2020.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of thick smear compared to polymerase chain reaction for pregnancy-associated malaria, 2010-2022.Revista peruana de medicina experimental y salud publicaPooled it
- Assessment of automated loop-mediated isothermal amplification-(LAMP-)based xenomonitoring for Plasmodium spp. in Anopheles mosquitoes.Malaria journal · 2026Article
- Article
- The Walter Reed Project, Kisumu Field Station: Impact of Research on Malaria Policy, Management, and Prevention.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE.: To evaluate the accuracy of thick smear (TS) versus quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for pregnancy-associated malaria (PAM). MATERIALS AND METHODS.: We carried out a systematic review of diagnostic tests in nine databases. Methodological quality was evaluated with QUADAS. Sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and area under the ROC curve were estimated. Heterogeneity was determined with the Der Simonian-Laird Q method and uncertainty with the weighted percentage of each study on the overall result. RESULTS.: We included 10 studies with 5691 pregnant women, 1415 placentas and 84 neonates. In the studies with nested PCR (nPCR) and quantitative PCR (qPCR) as the standard, the diagnostic accuracy results were statistically similar, with very low sensitivity (50 and 54%, respectively), high specificity (99% in both cases), high PLR and poor NLR. When nPCR was used, the DOR was 162 (95%CI=66-401) and the area under the ROC curve was 95%, while with qPCR it was 231 (95%CI=27-1951) and 78%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS.: We demonstrated that research on the diagnostic accuracy of TS in PAM is limited. Microscopy showed poor performance in the diagnosis of asymptomatic or low parasitemia infections, which reinforces the importance of implementing other types of techniques for the follow-up and control of malaria infections in pregnant women, in order to achieve the control and possible elimination of PAM.
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.