4.5 Article

An innovative and user-friendly scoring system for standardised quantitative interpretation of the urine-based point-of-care strip test (POC-CCA) for the diagnosis of intestinal schistosomiasis: a proof-of-concept study

Journal

ACTA TROPICA
Volume 199, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2019.105150

Keywords

POC-CCA: Circulating Cathodic Antigen; Semi-quantification; G-scores; Visual score

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The point-of-care strip assay for the detection of the schistosome Circulating Cathodic Antigen (POC-CCA) in urine has shown to be a user-friendly and sensitive alternative to stool microscopy for the diagnosis of Schistosoma mansoni infections. However, visual scoring of the test is by definition observer dependent and leads to discussion about the qualitative interpretation, in particular in low intensity infections when test lines tend to be weak. In order to standardise visual scoring, an innovative approach for semi-quantitative interpretation of the POC-CCA cassettes, called G-scores, was developed and evaluated. Urines (n = 110) from a S. mansoni endemic area were used to evaluate this new approach. Test lines of the POC-CCA were visually compared against the G-scores, i.e. a series of artificial cassettes containing inkjet-printed strips of different intensities in order to grade the POC-CCA test line on a scale of 1 to 10. A significant positive correlation (Spearman 0.660, p < 0.001) was observed between G-scores and eggs per gram of faeces. This proof-of-concept study demonstrates the usefulness of the G-scores for standardising the visual scoring of the POC-CCA urine strip assay. Several research groups have already indicated an interest in the G-scores for their field work. Further distribution of the cassettes, in particular when provided in combination with reference standards, will assist the wider schistosomiasis community in dealing with issues like batch-to-batch differences and interpretation of trace readings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available