↓ Skip to main content

Use of malaria RDTs in various health contexts across sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
89 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
259 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
Use of malaria RDTs in various health contexts across sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4398-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew R. Boyce, Wendy P. O’Meara

Abstract

The World Health Organization recommends parasitological confirmation of malaria prior to treatment. Malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) represent one diagnostic method that is used in a variety of contexts to overcome limitations of other diagnostic techniques. Malaria RDTs increase the availability and feasibility of accurate diagnosis and may result in improved quality of care. Though RDTs are used in a variety of contexts, no studies have compared how well or effectively RDTs are used across these contexts. This review assesses the diagnostic use of RDTs in four different contexts: health facilities, the community, drug shops and schools. A comprehensive search of the Pubmed database was conducted to evaluate RDT execution, test accuracy, or adherence to test results in sub-Saharan Africa. Original RDT and Plasmodium falciparum focused studies conducted in formal health care facilities, drug shops, schools, or by CHWs between the year 2000 and December 2016 were included. Studies were excluded if they were conducted exclusively in a research laboratory setting, where staff from the study team conducted RDTs, or in settings outside of sub-Saharan Africa. The literature search identified 757 reports. A total of 52 studies were included in the analysis. Overall, RDTs were performed safely and effectively by community health workers provided they receive proper training. Analogous information was largely absent for formal health care workers. Tests were generally accurate across contexts, except for in drug shops where lower specificities were observed. Adherence to RDT results was higher among drug shop vendors and community health workers, while adherence was more variable among formal health care workers, most notably with negative test results. Malaria RDTs are generally used well, though compliance with test results is variable - especially in the formal health care sector. If low adherence rates are extrapolated, thousands of patients may be incorrectly diagnosed and receive inappropriate treatment resulting in a low quality of care and unnecessary drug use. Multidisciplinary research should continue to explore determinants of good RDT use, and seek to better understand how to support and sustain the correct use of this diagnostic tool.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 259 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 259 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 16%
Researcher 32 12%
Student > Bachelor 28 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 10%
Student > Postgraduate 14 5%
Other 36 14%
Unknown 82 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 26 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 4%
Other 35 14%
Unknown 90 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 31 October 2023.
All research outputs
#2,376,884
of 24,710,887 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,723
of 16,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,701
of 318,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#59
of 248 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,710,887 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,365 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 318,289 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 248 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.