Table 2.

Estimated in situ limit of detection of HRP2-based rapid diagnostic tests used as estimated from logistic dose–response model: Tanzania, 2017

Village	Number enrolled(% of all)	RDT type	RDT positive (%)	HRP2 concentration at indicated probability of a positive test (ng/mL, 95% confidence interval)
				50%	75%	90%	95%
Herembe	473 (6.8%)	pLDH/HRP2	150 (31.7%)	1.53 (1.2–2.1)	4.28 (2.9–6.5)	11.95 (6.6–20)	24.00 (11–42)
Kigege	485 (7.0%)	pLDH/HRP2	166 (34.2%)	1.29 (1–1.7)	2.74 (2–3.8)	5.82 (3.6–8.6)	9.76 (5.3–15)
Kaseme	545 (7.9%)	pLDH/HRP2	109 (20.0%)	1.17 (0.88–1.7)	2.87 (1.8–4.6)	6.96 (3.6–12)	12.71 (5.3–23)
Mwamila	481 (6.9%)	pLDH/HRP2	189 (39.3%)	1.07 (0.85–1.4)	2.29 (1.7–3.2)	4.91 (3.1–7.2)	8.18 (4.6–13)
Kitunguli	399 (5.7%)	HRP2	170 (42.6%)	0.93 (0.63–1.5)	5.96 (3.2–12)	38.41 (14–101)	NA (33.0-NA)
Mkowela	408 (5.9%)	HRP2	159 (39.0%)	0.79 (0.65–0.98)	1.32 (1–1.7)	2.24 (1.5–3.1)	3.19 (2–4.5)
Nyankoronko	532 (7.7%)	pLDH/HRP2	232 (43.6%)	0.78 (0.67–0.95)	1.43 (1.1–1.8)	2.59 (1.8–3.4)	3.88 (2.5–5.3)
Kasenga	474 (6.8%)	pLDH/HRP2	201 (42.4%)	0.78 (0.67–0.93)	1.17 (0.96–1.4)	1.76 (1.3–2.2)	2.33 (1.6–3)
Nyangalamila	489 (7.0%)	pLDH/HRP2	118 (24.1%)	0.68 (0.57–0.86)	1.07 (0.83–1.4)	1.69 (1.1–2.3)	2.30 (1.4–3.2)
Katale	540 (7.8%)	pLDH/HRP2	128 (23.7%)	0.68 (0.56–0.87)	1.09 (0.81–1.5)	1.75 (1.1–2.4)	2.43 (1.4–3.5)
Lundo	410 (5.9%)	pLDH/HRP2	112 (27.3%)	0.65 (0.55–0.78)	0.90 (0.73–1.1)	1.27 (0.94–1.6)	1.60 (1.1–2.1)
Chiulu	435 (6.3%)	HRP2	116 (26.7%)	0.48 (0.42–0.59)	0.69 (0.55–0.86)	0.97 (0.7–1.2)	1.23 (0.81–1.6)
Lukumbule	469 (6.8%)	HRP2	204 (43.5%)	0.42 (0.37–0.48)	0.59 (0.5–0.7)	0.83 (0.65–1.0)	1.05 (0.76–1.3)
Mtawarawa	397 (5.7%)	HRP2	152 (38.3%)	0.26 (0.21–0.33)	0.41 (0.31–0.55)	0.66 (0.43–0.92)	0.92 (0.53–1.3)
Mkunwa	404 (5.8%)	HRP2	142 (35.1%)	0.18 (0.14–0.24)	0.29 (0.21–0.4)	0.48 (0.3–0.7)	0.68 (0.37–1.0)