↓ Skip to main content

Malaria surveys using rapid diagnostic tests and validation of results using post hoc quantification of Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein 2

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Malaria surveys using rapid diagnostic tests and validation of results using post hoc quantification of Plasmodium falciparum histidine-rich protein 2
Published in
Malaria Journal, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-2101-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mateusz Plucinski, Rafael Dimbu, Baltazar Candrinho, James Colborn, Aida Badiane, Daouda Ndiaye, Kimberly Mace, Michelle Chang, Jean F. Lemoine, Eric S. Halsey, John W. Barnwell, Venkatachalam Udhayakumar, Michael Aidoo, Eric Rogier

Abstract

Rapid diagnostic test (RDT) positivity is supplanting microscopy as the standard measure of malaria burden at the population level. However, there is currently no standard for externally validating RDT results from field surveys. Individuals' blood concentration of the Plasmodium falciparum histidine rich protein 2 (HRP2) protein were compared to results of HRP2-detecting RDTs in participants from field surveys in Angola, Mozambique, Haiti, and Senegal. A logistic regression model was used to estimate the HRP2 concentrations corresponding to the 50 and 90% level of detection (LOD) specific for each survey. There was a sigmoidal dose-response relationship between HRP2 concentration and RDT positivity for all surveys. Variation was noted in estimates for field RDT sensitivity, with the 50% LOD ranging between 0.076 and 6.1 ng/mL and the 90% LOD ranging between 1.1 and 53 ng/mL. Surveys conducted in two different provinces of Angola using the same brand of RDT and same study methodology showed a threefold difference in LOD. Measures of malaria prevalence estimated using population RDT positivity should be interpreted in the context of potentially large variation in RDT LODs between, and even within, surveys. Surveys based on RDT positivity would benefit from external validation of field RDT results by comparing RDT positivity and antigen concentration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 21%
Student > Master 9 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 11 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 8%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 17 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 November 2017.
All research outputs
#20,001,744
of 24,580,204 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#5,264
of 5,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#260,960
of 336,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#107
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,580,204 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,786 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 336,979 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.