| Title |
Loss of sensitivity of immunochromatographic test (ICT) for lymphatic filariasis diagnosis in low prevalence settings: consequence in the monitoring and evaluation procedures
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Infectious Diseases, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12879-015-1317-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Raceline Gounoue-Kamkumo, Hugues C. Nana-Djeunga, Jean Bopda, Julie Akame, Ann Tarini, Joseph Kamgno |
| Abstract |
Diagnostic tools for lymphatic filariasis (LF) elimination programs are useful in mapping the distribution of the disease, delineating areas where mass drug administrations (MDA) are required, and determining when to stop MDA. The prevalence and burden of LF have been drastically reduced following mass treatments, and the evaluation of the performance of circulating filarial antigen (CFA)-based assays was acknowledged to be of high interest in areas with low residual LF endemicity rates after multiple rounds of MDA. The objective of this study was therefore to evaluate the immunochromatographic test (ICT) sensitivity in low endemicity settings and, specifically, in individuals with low intensity of lymphatic filariasis infection. To perform this study, calibrated thick blood smears, ICT and Og4C3 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) were carried out by night to identify Wuchereria bancrofti microfilarial and circulating filarial antigen carriers. A threshold determination assay regarding ICT and ELISA was performed using serial plasma dilutions from individuals with positive microfilarial counts. All individuals harbouring microfilariae (positive blood films) were detected by ICT and ELISA, but among individuals positive for ELISA, only 35.7 % of them were detected using ICT (Chi square: 4.57; p-value = 0.03), indicating a moderate agreement between both tests (kappa statistics = 0.49). Threshold determination analyses showed that ELISA was still positive at the last plasma dilution with negative ICT result. These findings suggest a loss of sensitivity for ICT in low endemicity settings, especially in people exhibiting low levels of circulating filarial antigen, raising serious concern regarding the monitoring and evaluation procedures in the framework of LF elimination program. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 82 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 18% |
| Unknown | 24 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 11% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 7 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 29 | 35% |
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 25 December 2015.
All research outputs
#20,299,108
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#6,473
of 7,682 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#327,693
of 390,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#99
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,836,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,682 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 390,595 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 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.