Cited by 161Malaria Research and ControlClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlHemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders

Malaria misdiagnosis in Uganda – implications for policy change

Open access
Nankabirwa, Joan, Zurovac, Dejan, Njogu, Julius N, Rwakimari, John B, Counihan, Helen, Snow, Robert W, Tibenderana, James K·2009·Malaria Journal

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In Uganda, like in many other countries traditionally viewed as harbouring very high malaria transmission, the norm has been to recommend that febrile episodes are diagnosed as malaria. In this study, the policy implications of such recommendations are revisited. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was undertaken at outpatient departments of all health facilities in four Ugandan districts. The routine diagnostic practices were assessed for all patients during exit interviews and a research slide was obtained for later reading. Primary outcome measures were the accuracy of national recommendations and routine malaria diagnosis in comparison with the study definition of malaria (any parasitaemia on expert slide examination in patient with fever) stratified by age and intensity of malaria transmission. Secondary outcome measures were the use, interpretation and accuracy of routine malaria microscopy. RESULTS: 1,763 consultations undertaken by 233 health workers at 188 facilities were evaluated. The prevalence of malaria was 24.2% and ranged between 13.9% in patients >or=5 years in medium-to-high transmission areas to 50.5% for children <5 years in very high transmission areas. Overall, the sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) of routine malaria diagnosis were high (89.7% and 91.6% respectively) while the specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) were low (35.6% and 30.8% respectively). However, malaria was under-diagnosed in 39.9% of children less than five years of age in the very high transmission area. At 48 facilities with functional microscopy, the use of malaria slide examination was low (34.5%) without significant differences between age groups, or between patients for whom microscopy is recommended or not. 96.2% of patients with a routine positive slide result were treated for malaria but also 47.6% with a negative result. CONCLUSION: Current recommendations and associated clinical practices result in massive malaria over-diagnosis across all age groups and transmission areas in Uganda. Yet, under-diagnosis is also common in children <5 years. The potential benefits of malaria microscopy are not realized. To address malaria misdiagnosis, Uganda's policy shift from presumptive to parasitological diagnosis should encompass introduction of malaria rapid diagnostic tests and substantial strengthening of malaria microscopy.

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 · 10.1186/1475-2875-8-66

Cites

27 of 27 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
Nankabirwa, J., Zurovac, D., Njogu, J. N., Rwakimari, J. B., Counihan, H., Snow, R. W., & Tibenderana, J. K.
Affiliations
  • Malaria Consortium (UG)
  • Boston University (US)
  • Kenya Medical Research Institute (KE)
  • Ministry of Health (UG)
  • Malaria Consortium (GB)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Nankabirwa, Joan
  • Zurovac, Dejan
Venue
Malaria Journal
Published
2009-04-16
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
66-66
ISSN
1475-2875 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1972686260
Cited by
161
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 11
FWCI
12.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Malaria Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • OpenBU (Boston University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Greater South Information System
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (079080)
  • Department for International Development, UK Government
  • Department for International Development
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Malaria Research and Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics › Hemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders
Keywords
malaria misdiagnosis, malaria microscopy, malaria rapid diagnostic tests, diagnostic accuracy, malaria transmission intensity, children under five, febrile illness, malaria policy, Uganda
MeSH terms
Animals, Antimalarials, Child, Preschool, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diagnostic Errors, Diagnostic Tests, Routine, Female, Fever, Health Policy, Humans, Infant, Malaria, Male, Microscopy, Predictive Value of Tests, Sensitivity and Specificity, Uganda, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Parasitemia

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