↓ Skip to main content

False-negative malaria rapid diagnostic tests in Rwanda: impact of Plasmodium falciparum isolates lacking hrp2 and declining malaria transmission

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
104 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
277 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
False-negative malaria rapid diagnostic tests in Rwanda: impact of Plasmodium falciparum isolates lacking hrp2 and declining malaria transmission
Published in
Malaria Journal, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-1768-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christina T. Kozycki, Noella Umulisa, Stephen Rulisa, Emil I. Mwikarago, Jean Pierre Musabyimana, Jean Pierre Habimana, Corine Karema, Donald J. Krogstad

Abstract

Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) for histidine rich protein 2 (HRP2) are often used to determine whether persons with fever should be treated with anti-malarials. However, Plasmodium falciparum parasites with a deletion of the hrp2 gene yield false-negative RDTs and there are concerns the sensitivity of HRP2-based RDTs may fall when the intensity of transmission decreases. This observational study enrolled 9226 patients at three health centres in Rwanda from April 2014 to April 2015. It then compared the sensitivity of RDTs based on HRP2 and the Plasmodium lactate dehydrogenase (pLDH) to microscopy (thick smears) for the diagnosis of malaria. PCR was used to determine whether deletions of the histidine-rich central repeat region of the hrp2 gene (exon 2) were associated with false-negative HRP2-based RDTs. In comparison to microscopy, the sensitivity and specificity of HRP2- and pLDH-based RDTs were 89.5 and 86.2% and 80.2 and 94.3%, respectively. When the results for both RDTs were combined, sensitivity rose to 91.8% and specificity was 85.7%. Additionally, when smear positivity fell from 46 to 3%, the sensitivity of the HRP2-based RDT fell from 88 to 67%. Of 370 samples with false-negative HRP2 RDT results for which PCR was performed, 140 (38%) were identified as P. falciparum by PCR. Of the isolates identified as P. falciparum by PCR, 32 (23%) were negative for the hrp2 gene based on PCR. Of the 32 P. falciparum isolates negative for hrp2 by PCR, 17 (53%) were positive based on the pLDH RDT. This prospective study of RDT performance coincided with a decline in the intensity of malaria transmission in Kibirizi (fall in slide positivity from 46 to 3%). This decline was associated with a decrease in HRP2 RDT sensitivity (from 88 to 67%). While P. falciparum isolates without the hrp2 gene were an important cause of false-negative HRP2-based RDTs, most were identified by the pLDH-based RDT. Although WHO does not recommend the use of combined HRP2/pLDH testing in sub-Saharan Africa, these results suggest that combination HRP2/pLDH-based RDTs could reduce the impact of false-negative HRP2-based RDTs for detection of symptomatic P. falciparum malaria.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 277 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 277 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 13%
Researcher 31 11%
Student > Bachelor 25 9%
Student > Postgraduate 14 5%
Other 30 11%
Unknown 93 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 39 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 17 6%
Other 33 12%
Unknown 97 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 October 2022.
All research outputs
#3,395,352
of 24,716,872 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#771
of 5,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,815
of 314,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#28
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,716,872 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,785 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,448 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.