Diagnostic accuracy of a simple and rapid diagnostic test RLDT for the detection of cholera in Bangladesh.

Clicks: 2
ID: 313601
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #214 of 214 articles by views in Open forum infectious diseases

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 214 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Background The rising incidence and case fatality rates of cholera outbreaks underscore the need for better diagnostic tests for early detection and confirmation of the outbreak to enable rapid responses and obtain reliable surveillance data. We evaluated the Rapid LAMP-based Diagnostic Test (RLDT) for detecting cholera to determine if this test has the potential to fill the gap. Methods This study included training and evaluation of RLDT in the cholera reference laboratory in Bangladesh. Stool samples collected from suspected cholera patients seeking care at the icddr,b hospital, Dhaka, were tested using cholera RLDT, microbiological culture, Rapid Diagnostic Test (RDT crystal VC O1, O139), and PCR, and compared. Results Out of 205 cases analyzed, 136 (66%) were positive for cholera by RLDT, 131 (64%) by PCR, 92 (45%) by culture, and 90 (44%) by RDT. The RLDT was highly specific, as all the culture-positives were positive by RLDT, except one (sensitivity of 99%), and could detect all the PCR positives except 2 (sensitivity of 97%). Almost perfect agreement was found between RLDT and PCR (Kappa 0.9). RLDT being more sensitive than culture and RDT, the agreement was moderate (Kappa 0.6 and 0.5, respectively). RDT missed detection of cholera in 11 samples, positive by other tests. The accuracy of RLDT was 100% in detecting cholera from water samples. Conclusions RLDT was specific and sensitive, detecting 21% more cholera-positive cases than culture or RDT. RLDT has the potential to improve the rapid detection of cholera in outbreak situations and for surveillance data.
Reference Key
openalex_W7161168319 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Kamrul Islam, Ashraful Islam Khan, Taufiqur Rahman Bhuiyan, Fan He, Zahid Hasan Khan, Md Taufiqul Islam, Firdausi Qadri, Subhra Chakraborty
Journal Open forum infectious diseases
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/ofid/ofag292
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofag292
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.