↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of the CCA Immuno-Chromatographic Test to Diagnose Schistosoma mansoni in Minas Gerais State, Brazil

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Evaluation of the CCA Immuno-Chromatographic Test to Diagnose Schistosoma mansoni in Minas Gerais State, Brazil
Published in
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, January 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004357
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alda Maria Soares Silveira, Emanuele Gama Dutra Costa, Debalina Ray, Brian M. Suzuki, Michael H. Hsieh, Lucia Alves de Oliveira Fraga, Conor R. Caffrey

Abstract

The Kato-Katz (KK) stool smear is the standard test for the diagnosis of Schistosoma mansoni infection, but suffers from low sensitivity when infections intensities are moderate to low. Thus, misdiagnosed individuals remain untreated and contribute to the disease transmission, thereby forestalling public health efforts to move from a modality of disease control to one of elimination. As an alternative, the urine-based diagnosis of schistosomiasis mansoni via the circulating cathodic antigen immuno-chromatographic test (CCA-ICT) has been extensively evaluated in Africa with the conclusion that it may replace the KK test in areas where prevalences are moderate or high. The objective was to measure the performance of the CCA-ICT in a sample study population composed of residents from non-endemic and endemic areas for schistosomiasis mansoni in two municipalities of Minas Gerais state, Brazil. Volunteers (130) were classified into three infection status groups based on duplicate Kato-Katz thick smears from one stool sample (2KK test): 41 negative individuals from non-endemic areas, 41 negative individuals from endemic areas and 48 infected individuals from endemic areas. Infection status was also determined by the CCA-ICT and infection exposure by antibody ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) to S. mansoni soluble egg antigen (SEA) and soluble (adult) worm antigen preparation (SWAP). Sensitivity and specificity were influenced by whether the trace score visually adjudicated in the CCA-ICT was characterized as positive or negative for S. mansoni infection. An analysis of a two-graph receiver operating characteristic was performed to change the cutoff point. When the trace score was interpreted as a positive rather than as a negative result, the specificity decreased from 97.6% to 78.0% whereas sensitivity increased from 68.7% to 85.4%. A significantly positive correlation between the CCA-ICT scores and egg counts was identified (r = 0.6252, p = 0.0001). However, the CCA-ICT misdiagnosed as negative 14.6% of 2KK positive individuals, predominantly those with light infections (fewer than 100 eggs/g feces). Considering 2KK as reference test, the discriminating power of the CCA-ICT (the area under the curve [AUC] = 0.817) was greater than the SEA-ELISA (AUC = 0.744) and SWAP-ELISA (AUC = 0.704). Our data for the performance of the CCA-ICT in the Brazilian communities endemic for schistosomiasis mansoni support those from Africa, i.e., in areas with greater infection prevalence and intensities, the CCA-ICT may be useful as a tool to indicate community-based preventative chemotherapy without individual diagnosis. However, because of the Brazilian Ministry of Health's recommendation for individual diagnosis in areas where prevalence is less than 15%, i.e., those areas in which infection intensities are likely to be lowest, the CCA-ICT lacks the sensitivity to be used as standalone diagnostic tool.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 79 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 15%
Student > Master 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 18 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 19 24%
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 11 May 2016.
All research outputs
#8,475,150
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#5,067
of 9,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,647
of 400,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
#121
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,377 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 400,971 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.