↓ Skip to main content

Comparing the performance of circulating cathodic antigen and Kato-Katz techniques in evaluating Schistosoma mansoni infection in areas with low prevalence in selected counties of Kenya: a cross-sectio…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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
Comparing the performance of circulating cathodic antigen and Kato-Katz techniques in evaluating Schistosoma mansoni infection in areas with low prevalence in selected counties of Kenya: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Public Health, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5414-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Collins Okoyo, Elses Simiyu, Sammy M. Njenga, Charles Mwandawiro

Abstract

Kato-Katz technique has been the mainstay test in Schistosoma mansoni diagnosis in endemic areas. However, recent studies have documented its poor sensitivity in evaluating Schistosoma mansoni infection especially in areas with lower rates of transmission. It's the primary diagnostic tool in monitoring impact of the Kenya national school based deworming program on infection transmission, but there is need to consider a more sensitive technique as the prevalence reduces. Therefore, this study explored the relationship between results of the stool-based Kato-Katz technique with urine-based point-of-care circulating cathodic antigen (POC-CCA) test in view to inform decision-making by the program in changing from Kato-Katz to POC-CCA test. We used two cross-sectional surveys conducted pre- and post- mass drug administration (MDA) using praziquantel in a representative random sample of children from 18 schools across 11 counties. A total of 1944 children were randomly sampled for the study. Stool and urine samples were tested for S. mansoni infection using Kato-Katz and POC-CCA methods, respectively. S. mansoni prevalence using each technique was calculated and 95% confidence intervals obtained using binomial regression model. Specificity (Sp) and sensitivity (Sn) were determined using 2 × 2 contingency tables and compared using the McNemar's chi-square test. A total of 1899 and 1878 children were surveyed at pre- and post-treatment respectively. S. mansoni infection prevalence was 26.5 and 21.4% during pre- and post-treatment respectively using POC-CCA test, and 4.9 and 1.5% for pre- and post-treatment respectively using Kato-Katz technique. Taking POC-CCA as the gold standard, Kato-Katz was found to have significantly lower sensitivity both at pre- and post-treatment, Sn = 12.5% and Sn = 5.2% respectively, McNemar test χ2m = 782.0, p < 0.001. In overall, the results showed a slight/poor agreement between the two methods, kappa index (k) = 0.11, p < 0.001, inter-rater agreement = 77.1%. Results showed POC-CCA technique as an effective, sensitive and accurate screening tool for Schistosoma mansoni infection in areas of low prevalence. It was up to 14-fold accurate than Kato-Katz which had extremely inadequate sensitivity. We recommend usage of POC-CCA alongside Kato-Katz examinations by Schistosomiasis control programs in low prevalence areas.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 20%
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Lecturer 5 5%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 25 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 7%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 28 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 20 March 2019.
All research outputs
#6,982,273
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#7,352
of 15,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,739
of 329,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#210
of 310 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 329,173 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 310 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.