Fig 1.
Flow diagram showing literature search and study selection process used to capture studies that compared diagnostic performance of co-RDT and us-RDT in the same populations, 2021.
Fig 2.
A. Risk of bias and applicability concerns graph of included studies that compared diagnostic performance of co-RDT and us-RDT in the same populations, between 2017 and 2021. B. Risk of bias and applicability concerns summary of included studies that compared diagnostic performance of co-RDT and us-RDT in the same populations, from 2017 to 2021.
Fig 3.
Forest plot of sensitivity and specificity of the co-RDT test between 2017 and 2021.
Fig 4.
Forest plot of sensitivity and specificity of us-RDT test between 2017 and 2021.
Fig 5.
Deeks’ funnel plot asymmetry test for publication bias of co-RDT test, 2017 to 2021.
ESS; effective sample size. P value <0.005 were considered significant.
Fig 6.
Deeks’ funnel plot asymmetry test for publication bias of us-RDT test, 2017 to 2021.
ESS; effective sample size. P value <0.005 were considered significant.
Table 1.
Sub-group analysis of included studies that compared diagnostic performance of co-RDT and us-RDT in the same populations, between 2017 and 2021, based on diagnostic methods, transmission settings and symptomatic malaria patients.
Fig 7.
Forest plot of sensitivity and specificity of the co-RDT test in asymptomatic individuals, from 2017 to 2021.
Fig 8.
Forest plot of sensitivity and specificity of us-RDT test in asymptomatic individuals, from 2017 to 2021.