TABLE 3

Performance of urine malaria test and blood-based RDTs in overall study participants and febrile and afebrile subjects at clinical presentation

Group and parameteraTest performancebP valuec
UMTBinaxNOW PfBinaxNOW PanUMT vs BinaxNOW PfUMT vs BinaxNOW Pan
All participants (n = 1,691)
    Sensitivity (% [95% CI])79 (75, 84)98 (96, 99)80 (76, 84)<0.0010.824
    Specificity (% [95% CI])89 (87, 91)75 (72, 77)93 (92, 94)<0.001<0.001
    PPV (% [95% CI])65 (60, 69)50 (46, 53)74 (70, 79)1.000.988
    NPV (% [95% CI])94 (93, 96)99 (99, 100)95 (94, 96)0.9321.00
    NLR0.23 (0.23, 0.24)0.02 (0.02, 0.03)0.21 (0.21, 0.22)
    PLR7.2 (7.2, 7.3)3.9 (3.9, 3.9)11.5 (11.3, 11.8)
Febrile participants (n = 566)
    Sensitivity (% [95% CI])85 (79, 89)99 (97, 100)86 (80, 90)<0.0010.883
    Specificity (% [95% CI])84 (80, 88)69 (64, 74)86 (83, 90)<0.0010.176
    PPV (% [95% CI])75 (69, 80)64 (59, 69)78 (72, 83)1.000.981
    NPV (% [95% CI])91 (87, 94)99 (97, 100)92 (88, 94)0.6930.808
    NLR0.18 (0.17, 0.19)0.01 (0.01, 0.04)0.16 (0.16, 0.17)
    PLR5.3 (5.1, 5.5)3.2 (3.1, 3.2)6.3 (6.1, 6.6)
Afebrile participants (n = 1,125)
    Sensitivity (% [95% CI])72 (63, 79)97 (93, 99)72 (64, 80)<0.0011.00
    Specificity (% [95% CI])91 (89, 93)77 (74, 80)95 (94, 97)<0.001<0.001
    PPV (% [95% CI])52 (45, 59)37 (32, 42)69 (61, 76)1.000.981
    NPV (% [95% CI])96 (94, 97)99 (99, 100)96 (95, 97)0.9381.00
    NLR0.31 (0.30, 0.32)0.04 (0.02, 0.06)0.29 (0.28, 0.30)
    PLR7.9 (7.7, 8.1)4.2 (4.2, 4.2)15.9 (15.1, 16.6)
  • a PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; NLR, negative likelihood ratio; PLR, positive likelihood ratio.

  • b BinaxNOW Pf contains HRP-2, a P. falciparum-specific antigen, and BinaxNOW Pan contains aldolase, an antigen found in all species of Plasmodium. P. falciparum is the most dominant species in the trial area.

  • c P values comparing the sensitivities and specificities of the Fyodor UMT and the BinaxNOW tests were estimated using McNemar's test. P values comparing the positive and negative predictive values were calculated using the weighted generalized score statistic.