The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of the direct agglutination test and rK39 dipstick for visceral leishmaniasis
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of the direct agglutination test and rK39 dipstick for the diagnosis of visceral leishmaniasis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, citation tracking, January 1986 to December 2004. Selection criteria Original studies evaluating the direct agglutination test or the rK39 dipstick with clinical visceral leishmaniasis as target condition; adequate reference classification; and absolute numbers of true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative observations available or derivable from the data presented. RESULTS: 30 studies evaluating the direct agglutination test and 13 studies evaluating the rK39 dipstick met the inclusion criteria. The combined sensitivity estimates of the direct agglutination test and the rK39 dipstick were 94.8% (95% confidence interval 92.7% to 96.4%) and 93.9% (87.7% to 97.1%), respectively. Sensitivity seemed higher and more homogenous in the studies carried out in South Asia. Specificity estimates were influenced by the type of controls. In phase III studies carried out on patients with clinically suspected disease, the estimated specificity of the direct agglutination test was 85.9% (72.3% to 93.4%) and of the rK39 dipstick was 90.6% (66.8% to 97.9%). CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of the direct agglutination test and the rK39 dipstick for visceral leishmaniasis is good to excellent and seem comparable.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Whiting, P., Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuyt, P. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2003) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 · Cited by 3,592
Deeks, J. J., Altman, D. G., & Bradburn, M. J. (2001) · Systematic Reviews in Health Care · doi:10.1002/9780470693926.ch15 · Cited by 2,163
Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta‐Analysis in Context
(2001) · doi:10.1002/9780470693926 · Cited by 1,693
The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: Explanation and Elaboration
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Moher, D., Rennie, D., de Vet, H. C. W., & Lijmer, J. G. (2003) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00012-w1 · Cited by 1,124
Cited by
Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases
Song, F., Parekh, Hooper, L., Loke, Y., Ryder, J., Sutton, A., Hing, C., Kwok, C., Pang, C., & Harvey, I. (2010) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta14080 · Cited by 1,039
Sundar, S., Sinha, P. K., Rai, M., Verma, D. K., Nawin, K., Alam, S., Chakravarty, J., Vaillant, M., Verma, N., Pandey, K., et al. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(10)62050-8 · Cited by 337
Tolerability of different oral iron supplements: a systematic review
Cancelo-Hidalgo, M. J., Castelo-Branco, C., Palacios, S., Haya-Palazuelos, J., Ciria-Recasens, M., Manasanch, J., & Pérez-Edo, L. (2013) · Current Medical Research and Opinion · doi:10.1185/03007995.2012.761599 · Cited by 320
Metadata
- Authors
- Chappuis, F., Rijal, S., Soto, A., Menten, J., & Boelaert, M.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2006-08-01
- Volume
- 333
- Issue
- 7571
- Pages
- 723
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2143657662
- Cited by
- 287
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 1.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of the direct agglutination test and rK39 dipstick for visceral leishmaniasis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.38917.503056.7c
- The paper
- Chappuis, F., Rijal, S., Soto, A., Menten, J., & Boelaert, M. (2006). A meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of the direct agglutination test and rK39 dipstick for visceral leishmaniasis. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38917.503056.7c
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
