↓ Skip to main content

A scoping review on the field validation and implementation of rapid diagnostic tests for vector-borne and other infectious diseases of poverty in urban areas

Overview of attention for article published in Infectious Diseases of Poverty, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
188 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
A scoping review on the field validation and implementation of rapid diagnostic tests for vector-borne and other infectious diseases of poverty in urban areas
Published in
Infectious Diseases of Poverty, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40249-018-0474-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lyda Osorio, Jonny Alejandro Garcia, Luis Gabriel Parra, Victor Garcia, Laura Torres, Stéphanie Degroote, Valéry Ridde

Abstract

Health personnel face challenges in diagnosing vector-borne and other diseases of poverty in urban settings. There is a need to know what rapid diagnostic technologies are available, have been properly assessed, and are being implemented to improve control of these diseases in the urban context. This paper characterizes evidence on the field validation and implementation in urban areas of rapid diagnostics for vector-borne diseases and other diseases of poverty. A scoping review was conducted. Peer-reviewed and grey literature were searched using terms describing the targeted infectious diseases, diagnostics evaluations, rapid tests, and urban setting. The review was limited to studies published between 2000 and 2016 in English, Spanish, French, and Portuguese. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were refined post hoc to identify relevant literature regardless of study design and geography. A total of 179 documents of the 7806 initially screened were included in the analysis. Malaria (n = 100) and tuberculosis (n = 47) accounted for the majority of studies that reported diagnostics performance, impact, and implementation outcomes. Fewer studies, assessing mainly performance, were identified for visceral leishmaniasis (n = 9), filariasis and leptospirosis (each n = 5), enteric fever and schistosomiasis (each n = 3), dengue and leprosy (each n = 2), and Chagas disease, human African trypanosomiasis, and cholera (each n = 1). Reported sensitivity of rapid tests was variable depending on several factors. Overall, specificities were high (> 80%), except for schistosomiasis and cholera. Impact and implementation outcomes, mainly acceptability and cost, followed by adoption, feasibility, and sustainability of rapid tests are being evaluated in the field. Challenges to implementing rapid tests range from cultural to technical and administrative issues. Rapid diagnostic tests for vector-borne and other diseases of poverty are being used in the urban context with demonstrated impact on case detection. However, most evidence comes from malaria rapid diagnostics, with variable results. While rapid tests for tuberculosis and visceral leishmaniasis require further implementation studies, more evidence on performance of current tests or development of new alternatives is needed for dengue, Chagas disease, filariasis, leptospirosis, enteric fever, human African trypanosomiasis, schistosomiasis and cholera.

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 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 188 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 16%
Student > Master 26 14%
Student > Bachelor 19 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Other 18 10%
Unknown 64 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 7 4%
Other 27 14%
Unknown 72 38%