Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 103Malaria Research and ControlClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Current strategies to avoid misdiagnosis of malaria

Open access
Hänscheid, T.·2003·Clinical Microbiology and Infection

Abstract

Malaria remains the most important parasitic disease, and tens of thousands of cases are imported into non-endemic countries annually. However, any single institution may see only a very few cases-this is probably the reason why laboratory and clinical misdiagnosis may not be uncommon. In the laboratory, unfamiliarity with microscopic diagnosis may be the main reason, considering the large number of laboratory staff who provide on-call services, often without expert help at hand, as well as the difficulty in detecting cases with low-level parasitemia. Staff should therefore be provided with continuing microscopic training to maintain proficiency. The complementary use of immunochromatographic rapid detection tests (RDTs) may be useful, especially during on-call hours, although, in order to ensure correct interpretation, their inherent limitations have to be well known. Diagnosis based on the polymerase chain reaction is still unsuitable for routine use, due to its long turnaround time, its cost, and its unavailability outside regular hours, although it may be helpful in selected cases. Once the alert clinician has considered the possibility of malaria, and suspicion continues to be high, malaria can be excluded by repeat smears or RDTs. However, the absence of clinical suspicion may not be infrequent, and may have more serious consequences. Depending on the local number of malaria cases seen, laboratory staff should have a low threshold for the decision to perform unsolicited…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1469-0691.2003.00640.x

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 40 references

Cited by

See all 103

Metadata

Authors
Hänscheid, T.
Affiliations
Hospital de Santa Maria (PT)
Corresponding author
Hänscheid, T.
Venue
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-06
Volume
9
Issue
6
Pages
497-504
ISSN
1198-743X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1566086233
Cited by
103
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Clinical Microbiology and Infection (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Malaria Research and Control
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Medical Laboratory Technology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Microbiology (medical) › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Keywords
malaria misdiagnosis, imported malaria, rapid immunochromatographic test
MeSH terms
Diagnosis, Differential, Diagnostic Errors, Humans, Malaria, Clinical Laboratory Techniques

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Current strategies to avoid misdiagnosis of malaria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1469-0691.2003.00640.x
The paper
Hänscheid, T. (2003). Current strategies to avoid misdiagnosis of malaria. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0691.2003.00640.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.