Cited by 37Malaria Research and ControlBiosensors and Analytical DetectionClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

Reliability of rapid diagnostic tests in diagnosing pregnancy-associated malaria in north-eastern Tanzania

Open access
Minja, Daniel TR, Schmiegelow, Christentze, Oesterholt, Mayke, Magistrado, Pamela A, Boström, Stéphanie, John, Davis, Pehrson, Caroline, Andersen, Daniel +7 more·2012·Malaria Journal

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Accurate diagnosis and prompt treatment of pregnancy-associated malaria (PAM) are key aspects in averting adverse pregnancy outcomes. Microscopy is the gold standard in malaria diagnosis, but it has limited detection and availability. When used appropriately, rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) could be an ideal diagnostic complement to microscopy, due to their ease of use and adequate sensitivity in detecting even sub-microscopic infections. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is even more sensitive, but it is mainly used for research purposes. The accuracy and reliability of RDTs in diagnosing PAM was evaluated using microscopy and PCR. METHODS: A cohort of pregnant women in north-eastern Tanzania was followed throughout pregnancy for detection of plasmodial infection using venous and placental blood samples evaluated by histidine rich protein 2 (HRP-2) and parasite lactate dehydrogenase (pLDH) based RDTs (Parascreen™) or HRP-2 only (Paracheck Pf® and ParaHIT®f), microscopy and nested Plasmodium species diagnostic PCR. RESULTS: From a cohort of 924 pregnant women who completed the follow up, complete RDT and microscopy data was available for 5,555 blood samples and of these 442 samples were analysed by PCR. Of the 5,555 blood samples, 49 ((proportion and 95% confidence interval) 0.9% [0.7 -1.1]) samples were positive by microscopy and 91 (1.6% [1.3-2.0]) by RDT. Forty-six (50.5% [40.5 - 60.6]) and 45 (49.5% [39.4 - 59.5]) of the RDT positive samples were positive and negative by microscopy, respectively, whereas nineteen (42.2% [29.0 - 56.7]) of the microscopy negative, but RDT positive, samples were positive by PCR. Three (0.05% [0.02 - 0.2]) samples were positive by microscopy but negative by RDT. 351 of the 5,461 samples negative by both RDT and microscopy were tested by PCR and found negative. There was no statistically significant difference between the performances of the different RDTs. CONCLUSIONS: Microscopy underestimated the real burden of malaria during pregnancy and RDTs performed better than microscopy in diagnosing PAM. In areas where intermittent preventive treatment during pregnancy may be abandoned due to low and decreasing malaria risk and instead replaced with active case management, screening with RDT is likely to identify most infections in pregnant women and out-performs microscopy as a diagnostic tool.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1475-2875-11-211

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Minja, D. T., Schmiegelow, C., Oesterholt, M., Magistrado, P. A., Boström, S., John, D., Pehrson, C., Andersen, D., Deloron, P., Salanti, A., Lemnge, M., Luty, A. J., Alifrangis, M., Theander, T., & Lusingu, J. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
  • Stockholm University (SE)
  • Sorbonne Paris Cité (FR)
  • National Institute for Medical Research (TZ)
Corresponding author
Minja, Daniel TR
Venue
Malaria Journal
Published
2012-06-21
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
211-211
ISSN
1475-2875 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2140051057
Cited by
37
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Malaria Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • IHI Repository (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • European Commission (200889)
  • Radboud Universiteit
  • Danish International Development Agency
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Malaria Research and Control
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Biosensors and Analytical Detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Keywords
rapid diagnostic tests, diagnostic accuracy, microscopy, HRP-2, lactate dehydrogenase, Plasmodium falciparum, placental malaria, malaria in pregnancy, northeastern Tanzania, adverse pregnancy outcomes, maternal mortality
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Antigens, Protozoan, Blood, Diagnostic Tests, Routine, Female, Humans, Malaria, Parasitology, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Infectious, Prospective Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity, Tanzania, Cohort Studies, Clinical Laboratory Techniques, Young Adult

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