Background Real-time PCR is recommended to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, PCR availability is restricted in most countries. Rapid diagnostic tests are considered acceptable alternatives, but data are lacking on their performance. We assessed the performance of four antibody-based rapid diagnostic tests and one antigen-based rapid diagnostic test for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community in Cameroon. MethodsIn this clinical, prospective, diagnostic accuracy study, we enrolled individuals aged at least 21 years who were either symptomatic and suspected of having COVID-19 or asymptomatic and presented for screening. We tested peripheral blood for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using the Innovita (Biological Technology; Beijing, China), Wondfo (Guangzhou Wondfo Biotech; Guangzhou, China), SD Biosensor (SD Biosensor; Gyeonggi-do, South Korea), and Runkun tests (Runkun Pharmaceutical; Hunan, China), and nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 antigen using the SD Biosensor test. Antigen rapid diagnostic tests were compared with Abbott PCR testing (Abbott; Abbott Park, IL, USA), and antibody rapid diagnostic tests were compared with Biomerieux immunoassays (Biomerieux; Marcy l'Etoile, France). We retrospectively tested two diagnostic algorithms that incorporated rapid diagnostic tests for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients using simulation modelling. Findings 1195 participants were enrolled in the study. 347 (29%) tested SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive, 223 (19%) rapid diagnostic test antigen-positive, and 478 (40%) rapid diagnostic test antibody-positive. Antigen-based rapid diagnostic test sensitivity was 80•0% (95% CI 71•0-88•0) in the first 7 days after symptom onset, but antibody-based rapid diagnostic tests had only 26•8% sensitivity (18•3-36•8). Antibody rapid diagnostic test sensitivity increased to 76•4% (70•1-82•0) 14 days after symptom onset. Among asymptomatic participants, the sensitivity of antigen-based and antibody-based rapid diagnostic tests were 37•0% (27•0-48•0) and 50•7% (42•2-59•1), respectively. Cohen's κ showed substantial agreement between Wondfo antibody rapid diagnostic test and gold-standard ELISA (κ=0•76; sensitivity 0•98) and between Biosensor and ELISA (κ=0•60; sensitivity 0•94). Innovita (κ=0•47; sensitivity 0•93) and Runkun (κ=0•43; sensitivity 0•76) showed moderate agreement. An antigen-based retrospective algorithm applied to symptomatic patients showed 94•0% sensitivity and 91•0% specificity in the first 7 days after symptom onset. For asymptomatic participants, the algorithm showed a sensitivity of 34% (95% CI 23•0-44•0) and a specificity of 92•0% (88•0-96•0). Interpretation Rapid diagnostic tests had good overall sensitivity for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. Rapid diagnostic tests could be incorporated into efficient testing algorithms as an alternative to PCR to decrease diagnostic delays and onward viral transmission. Funding Médecins Sans Frontières WACA and Médecins Sans Frontières OCG.
Introduction Injury rates in sub-Saharan Africa are among the highest in the world, but prospective, registrybased reports from Cameroon are limited. We aimed to create a prospective trauma registry to expand the data elements collected on injury at a busy tertiary center in Yaoundé Cameroon. Methods Details of the injury context, presentation, care, cost, and disposition from the emergency department (ED) were gathered over a 6-month period, by trained research assistants using a structured questionnaire. Bivariate and multivariate models were built to explore variable relationships and outcomes.Results There were 2,855 injured patients in 6 months, comprising almost half of all ED visits. Mean age was 30 years; 73 % were male. Injury mechanism was road traffic injury in 59 %, fall in 7 %, penetrating trauma in 6 %, and animal bites in 4 %. Of these, 1,974 (69 %) were discharged home, 517 (18 %) taken to the operating room, and 14 (1 %) to the intensive care unit. The body areas most severely injured were pelvis and extremity in 43 %, head in 30 %, chest in 4 %, and abdomen in 3 %. The estimated injury severity score (eISS) was\9 in 60 %, 9-24 in 35 %, and[25 in 2 %. Mortality was 0.7 %. In the multivariate analysis, independent predictors of mortality were eISS C9 and Glasgow Coma Score B12. Road traffic injury was an independent predictor for the need to have surgery. Trauma registry results were presented to the Ministry of Health in Cameroon, prompting the formation of a National Injury Committee. Conclusions Injuries comprise a significant proportion of ED visits and utilization of surgical services in Yaoundé. A prospective approach allows for more extensive information. Thorough data from a prospective trauma registry can be used successfully to advocate for policy towards prevention and treatment of injuries.
BACKGROUND: Surgical safety has advanced rapidly with evidence of improved patient outcomes through structural and process interventions. However, knowledge of how to apply these interventions successfully and sustainably at scale is often lacking. The 2019 Global Ministerial Patient Safety Summit called for a focus on implementation strategies to maintain momentum in patient safety improvements, especially in low- and middle-income settings. This study uses an implementation framework, knowledge to action, to examine a model of nationwide World Health Organization (WHO) Surgical Safety Checklist implementation in Cameroon. Cameroon is a lower-middle-income country, and based on data from high- and low-income countries, we hypothesized that more than 50% of participants would be using the checklist (penetration) in the correct manner (fidelity) 4 months postintervention. METHODS: A collaboration of 3 stakeholders (Ministry of Health, academic institution, and nongovernmental organization) used a prospective observational design. Based on knowledge to action, there were 3 phases to the study implementation: problem identification (lack of routine checklist use in Cameroonian hospitals), multifaceted implementation strategy (3-day multidisciplinary training course, coaching, facilitated leadership engagement, and support networks), and outcome evaluation 4 months postintervention. Validated implementation outcomes were assessed. Primary outcomes were checklist use (penetration) and fidelity; secondary outcomes were perioperative teams’ reactions, learning and behavior change; and tertiary outcomes were perioperative teams’ acceptability of the checklist. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-one operating room staff members from 25 hospitals received training. Median time to evaluation was 4.5 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 4.5–5.5, range 3–7); checklist use (penetration) increased from 20% (95% confidence interval [CI], 16–25) to 56% (95% CI, 49–63); fidelity for adherence to 6 basic safety processes was high: verification of patient identification was 91% (95% CI, 87–95); risk assessment for difficult intubation was 79% (95% CI, 73–85): risk assessment for blood loss was 88% (95% CI, 83–93) use of pulse oximetry was 93% (95% CI, 90–97); antibiotic administration was 95% (95% CI, 91–98); surgical counting was 89% (95% CI, 84–93); and fidelity for nontechnical skills measured by the WHO Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale was 4.5 of 7 (95% CI, 3.5–5.4). Median scores for all secondary outcomes were 10/10, and 7 acceptability measures were consistently more than 70%. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that a multifaceted implementation strategy is associated with successful checklist implementation in a lower-middle-income country such as Cameroon, and suggests that a theoretical framework can be used to practically drive nationwide scale-up of checklist use.
Patterns in terms of age, gender, and mechanism of injury are similar to reports from other countries from the same geographic region, but the magnitude of cases reported is high for a single institution in an African city the size of Yaoundé. As the burden of disease is predicted to increase dramatically in sub-Saharan Africa, immediate efforts in prevention and treatment in Cameroon are strongly warranted.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.