Cited by 76Malaria Research and ControlBiosensors and Analytical DetectionClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

Field and laboratory comparative evaluation of rapid malaria diagnostic tests versus traditional and molecular techniques in India

Open access
Singh, Neeru, Shukla, Man M, Shukla, Mohan K, Mehra, Rajiv K, Sharma, Shweta, Bharti, Praveen K, Singh, Mrigendra P, Singh, Ajay +1 more·2010·Malaria Journal

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Malaria presents a diagnostic challenge in most tropical countries. Microscopy remains the gold standard for diagnosing malaria infections in clinical practice and research. However, microscopy is labour intensive, requires significant skills and time, which causes therapeutic delays. The objective of obtaining result quickly from the examination of blood samples from patients with suspected malaria is now made possible with the introduction of rapid malaria diagnostic tests (RDTs). Several RDTs are available, which are fast, reliable and simple to use and can detect Plasmodium falciparum and non-falciparum infections or both. A study was conducted in tribal areas of central India to measure the overall performance of several RDTs for diagnosis of P. falciparum and non-falciparum infections in comparison with traditional and molecular techniques. Such data will be used to guide procurement decisions of policy makers and programme managers. METHODS: Five commercially available RDTs were tested simultaneously in field in parallel with peripheral blood smears in outbreak-affected areas. The evaluation is designed to provide comparative data on the performance of each RDT. In addition, molecular method i.e. polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was also carried out to compare all three methods. RESULTS: A total of 372 patients with a clinical suspicion of malaria from Bajag Primary Health Centre (PHC) of district Dindori and Satanwada PHC of district Shivpuri attending the field clinics of Regional Medical Research Centre were included in the study. The analysis revealed that the First Response Malaria Antigen pLDH/HRP2 combo test was 94.7% sensitive (95% CI 89.5-97.7) and 69.9% specific (95% CI 63.6-75.6) for P. falciparum. However, for non-falciparum infections (Plasmodium vivax) the test was 84.2% sensitive (95% CI 72.1-92.5) and 96.5% specific (95% CI 93.8-98.2). The Parascreen represented a good alternative. All other RDTs were relatively less sensitive for both P. falciparum and non-falciparum infections. CONCLUSIONS: The results in this study show comparative performance between microscopy, various RDTs and PCR. Despite some inherent limitation in the five RDTs tested, First Response clearly has an advantage over other RDTs. The results suggest that RDTs could play and will play an important role in malaria diagnosis.

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 · 10.1186/1475-2875-9-191

Cites

28 of 29 references verified1 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?

  • RDTs demonstrated variable sensitivities compared with PCR for the diagnosis of malaria in nonpregnant symptomatic populations.

    “RDTs also demonstrated variable sensitivities compared with PCR for the diagnosis of malaria in nonpregnant symptomatic populations [19–22].”

    From Diagnosing malaria in pregnancy: An update (2012) · cites this paper as [21]

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
Singh, N., Shukla, M. M., Shukla, M. K., Mehra, R. K., Sharma, S., Bharti, P. K., Singh, M. P., Singh, A., & Gunasekar, A.
Affiliations
  • Indian Council of Medical Research (IN)
  • World Health Organization - India (IN)
Corresponding author
Singh, Neeru
Venue
Malaria Journal
Published
2010-07-05
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
191-191
ISSN
1475-2875 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2116767616
Cited by
76
References
28
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 14
FWCI
9.19
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)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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
Plasmodium falciparum, Plasmodium vivax, malaria diagnosis, sensitivity and specificity, PCR, diagnostic test comparison, tribal areas, India
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Blood Specimen Collection, Child, Child, Preschool, False Positive Reactions, Female, Humans, Immunoassay, India, Infant, Male, Microscopy, Middle Aged, Plasmodium falciparum, Plasmodium vivax, Predictive Value of Tests, Reagent Kits, Diagnostic, Sensitivity and Specificity, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Malaria, Falciparum, Malaria, Vivax, 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