Cited by 101Malaria Research and ControlBiosensors and Analytical DetectionDigital Imaging for Blood Diseases

Are rapid diagnostic tests more accurate in diagnosis of plasmodium falciparum malaria compared to microscopy at rural health centres?

Open access
Batwala, Vincent, Magnussen, Pascal, Nuwaha, Fred·2010·Malaria Journal

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prompt, accurate diagnosis and treatment with artemisinin combination therapy remains vital to current malaria control. Blood film microscopy the current standard test for diagnosis of malaria has several limitations that necessitate field evaluation of alternative diagnostic methods especially in low income countries of sub-Saharan Africa where malaria is endemic. METHODS: The accuracy of axillary temperature, health centre (HC) microscopy, expert microscopy and a HRP2-based rapid diagnostic test (Paracheck) was compared in predicting malaria infection using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as the gold standard. Three hundred patients with a clinical suspicion of malaria based on fever and or history of fever from a low and high transmission setting in Uganda were consecutively enrolled and provided blood samples for all tests. Accuracy of each test was calculated overall with 95% confidence interval and then adjusted for age-groups and level of transmission intensity using a stratified analysis. The endpoints were: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). This study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00565071. RESULTS: Of the 300 patients, 88(29.3%) had fever, 56(18.7%) were positive by HC microscopy, 47(15.7%) by expert microscopy, 110(36.7%) by Paracheck and 89(29.7%) by PCR. The overall sensitivity >90% was only shown by Paracheck 91.0% [95%CI: 83.1-96.0]. The sensitivity of expert microscopy was 46%, similar to HC microscopy. The superior sensitivity of Paracheck compared to microscopy was maintained when data was stratified for transmission intensity and age. The overall specificity rates were: Paracheck 86.3% [95%CI: 80.9-90.6], HC microscopy 93.4% [95%CI: 89.1-96.3] and expert microscopy 97.2% [95%CI: 93.9-98.9]. The NPV >90% was shown by Paracheck 95.8% [95%CI: 91.9-98.2]. The overall PPV was <88% for all methods. CONCLUSION: The HRP2-based RDT has shown superior sensitivity compared to microscopy in diagnosis of malaria and may be more suitable for screening of malaria infection.

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 · 10.1186/1475-2875-9-349

Cites

33 of 33 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?

  • 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 [20]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. World Health Organization Guidelines for the treatment of malaria WHO 2010 2 Geneva 25473692

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Batwala, V., Magnussen, P., & Nuwaha, F.
Affiliations
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Makerere University (UG)
Venue
Malaria Journal
Published
2010-12
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
349-349
ISSN
1475-2875 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2160929074
Cited by
101
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 12
FWCI
9.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Malaria Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Greater South Information System
Funders
Department for International Development
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Malaria Research and Control
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Biosensors and Analytical Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Imaging for Blood Diseases
Keywords
Plasmodium falciparum, malaria diagnosis, rapid diagnostic tests, blood film microscopy, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, axillary temperature, transmission intensity, rural health facilities, artemisinin-based combination therapy, sub-Saharan Africa, Uganda, age-stratified analysis, predictive value, malaria control
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Child, Child, Preschool, Developing Countries, Female, Humans, Immunoassay, Infant, Male, Microscopy, Middle Aged, Parasitology, Plasmodium falciparum, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Rural Health, Sensitivity and Specificity, Uganda, Malaria, Falciparum, 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