4.3 Article

Clinical validation trial of a diagnostic for Ebola Zaire antigen detection: Design rationale and challenges to implementation

期刊

CLINICAL TRIALS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 66-72

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1740774515621013

关键词

Ebola; diagnostic; lateral flow; validation trial

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [P20 RR021970] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [R44 AI088843, U19 AI115589, HHSN272200900049C] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NICHD NIH HHS [K12 HD043451] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current Ebola outbreak in West Africa has affected more people than all previous outbreaks combined. The current diagnostic method of choice, quantitative polymerase chain reaction, requires specialized conditions as well as specially trained technicians. Insufficient testing capacity has extended the time from sample collection to results. These delays have led to further delays in the transfer and treatment to Ebola Treatment Units. A sensitive and specific point-of-care device that could be used reliably in low-resource settings by healthcare workers with minimal training would increase the efficiency of triage and appropriate transfer of care. This article describes a study designed to validate the sensitivity and specificity of the ReEBOVTM Rapid Diagnostic Test using venous whole blood and capillary blood obtained via fingerprick. We present the scientific and clinical rationale for the decisions made in the design of a diagnostic validation study to be conducted in an outbreak setting. The multi-site strategy greatly complicated implementation. In addition, a decrease in cases in one geographic area along with a concomitant increase in other areas made site selection challenging. Initiation of clinical trials during rapidly evolving outbreaks requires significant cooperation on a national level between research teams implementing studies and clinical care providers. Coordination and streamlining of approval process are essential if trials are to be implemented in a timely fashion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据