CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 24Malaria Research and ControlBiosensors and Analytical DetectionClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

Performance of the OptiMAL® dipstick in the diagnosis of malaria infection in pregnancy

Open access
Tagbor, H·2008·Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s2809PMC PMC2500256
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The accuracy of OptiMAL((R)) dipsticks was compared with that of microscopy in the diagnosis of malaria infection in pregnancy. During the course of a clinical trial of antimalarial drugs in pregnancy, we screened 4500 pregnant women of all parities who accessed antenatal clinic services at St. Theresa's Hospital's in Nkoranza, Ghana, between March 2003 and December 2004 with OptiMAL((R)) dipsticks and confirmed the diagnosis of malaria with microscopy. We determined the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and the area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the OptiMAL((R)) antigen test compared to microscopy for the diagnosis of malaria infection in pregnancy. OptiMAL((R)) dipsticks had a sensitivity of 96.6%, specificity of 85.4%, a positive predictive value of 92.7%, a negative predictive value of 92.6%, and an area under the ROC curve of 0.91 (95% CI of 0.90-0.92). The diagnostic accuracy of the OptiMAL((R)) dipstick is high and the test may have practical use in the diagnosis of malaria infection in pregnancy in malaria endemic countries.

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 · 10.2147/tcrm.s2809

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?

  • In a larger study, OptiMal had 100% sensitivity and 93.3% specificity at parasite densities above 50/μl blood, but a sensitivity of only 57.1% at lower parasite densities.

    “In a larger study [12], OptiMal had 100% sensitivity and 93.3% specificity at parasite densities >50/μl blood, but a sensitivity of only 57.1% at lower parasite densities.”

    From Diagnosing malaria in pregnancy: An update (2012) · cites this paper as [12]

  • The sensitivity of the OptiMAL test increases with parasite density.

    “The sensitivity of the OptiMAL test increases with parasite density.”

    From Diagnosing malaria in pregnancy: An update (2012) · cites this paper as [12]

  • The OptiMAL test, based on pLDH detection, gave varying results between studies when compared with peripheral blood smears, with sensitivity ranging from 15 to 96.6% and specificity from 90.8 to 98%.

    “The OptiMAL test, based on the detection of pLDH, gave varying results between studies when compared with peripheral BS. The sensitivity ranged from 15 to 96.6% and specificity from 90.8 to 98% [10–12].”

    From Diagnosing malaria in pregnancy: An update (2012) · cites this paper as [12]

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

2 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Tagbor, H.
Affiliations
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (GH)
Corresponding author
Tagbor, H
ORCID
Tagbor, H
Venue
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2008-06
Volume
Volume 4
Issue
3
Pages
631-636
ISSN
  • 1176-6336 (ISSN-L)
  • 1178-203X
DOI
10.2147/tcrm.s2809
PMC
PMC2500256
OpenAlex
W1721105297
Cited by
24
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
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
malaria in pregnancy, rapid diagnostic tests, diagnostic accuracy, microscopy comparison, sensitivity and specificity, prenatal screening

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