The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A review of practical techniques for the diagnosis of malaria
Abstract
Malaria is a global health problem, responsible for nearly 3 million deaths each year, and on the increase worldwide. Improvements in malaria diagnostics should facilitate the identification of individuals infected with the malarial parasites and the treatment of such cases with appropriate drugs. Both traditional and contemporary methods for malaria diagnosis are the subjects of the present review. Traditional diagnosis, based on the examination of Giemsa-stained thick and thin blood smears under a microscope, is inappropriate for many areas because there are insufficient microscopes and/or trained microscopists to read and interpret the slides. Such traditional methods are discussed in the context of parasite quantification. Newer, more advanced malaria diagnostics are now available and the relative merits of methods based on fluorescent microscopy or the detection of nucleic acid (including PCR) are described, including comparisons of costs. Fluorescent microscopy and nucleic-acid techniques both require skills and equipment which are not universally available in many malaria-endemic countries. Recently introduced diagnostic tests based on immuno-assays solve this problem since they are easy to run and interpret, and do not require complex equipment or technical support. They are also rapid (< 10 min/test), cost-effective and at least as sensitive as traditional microscopy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Malaria Parasites
Moody, A. (2002) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.15.1.66-78.2002 · Cited by 1,418
A Review of Malaria Diagnostic Tools: Microscopy and Rapid Diagnostic Test (RDT)
Wongsrichanalai, C., Barcus, M. J., Muth, S., Sutamihardja, A., & Wernsdorfer, W. H. (2007) · The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · doi:10.4269/ajtmh.2007.77.119 · Cited by 939
Fundamentals and application of magnetic particles in cell isolation and enrichment: a review
Plouffe, B. D., Murthy, S. K., & Lewis, L. H. (2015) · Reports on Progress in Physics · doi:10.1088/0034-4885/78/1/016601 · Cited by 334
Current status of malaria and potential for control
Phillips, R. S. (2001) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.14.1.208-226.2001 · Cited by 266
Amoah, L. E., Abankwa, J., & Oppong, A. (2016) · Malaria Journal · doi:10.1186/s12936-016-1159-z · Cited by 157
Metadata
- Authors
- T. MAKLER C. J. PALMER A. L. AGER, M.
- Venue
- Annals of Tropical Medicine And Parasitology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1998-06-01
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 419-433
- ISSN
- 0003-4983 (ISSN-L)
- 1364-8594
- OpenAlex
- W2060092117
- Cited by
- 301
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: A review of practical techniques for the diagnosis of malaria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/00034989859401
- The paper
- T. MAKLER C. J. PALMER A. L. AGER, M. (1998). A review of practical techniques for the diagnosis of malaria. Annals of Tropical Medicine And Parasitology. https://doi.org/10.1080/00034989859401
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.