OBJECTIVES: The present study compared the diagnostic and prognostic utility of two rapid tests the (Paracheck and OptiMal) versus conventional smear microscopy. METHODS: Using two independent microscopists we carried out the three tests in 31 adult cases of smear positive, acute, uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. All three tests were done pretreatment, and on Days 8, 15 and 29. RESULTS: Compared to microscopy, the Paracheck had a sensitivity of 100%, while the OptiMal had a sensitivity of 83.7%. The lower sensitivity of OptiMal resulted from misidentification by both microscopists of 6/31 cases as Plasmodium vivax. As a follow up tool, the OptiMal was better than Paracheck, due to the earlier disappearance of the parasite LDH. Also in the Paracheck, between microscopists, there was a significant difference in reading the tests, on Days 8 and 15. CONCLUSION: Our study reiterates, the continued utility of conventional smear microscopy.
OBJECTIVES: The present study compared the diagnostic and prognostic utility of two rapid tests the (Paracheck and OptiMal) versus conventional smear microscopy. METHODS: Using two independent microscopists we carried out the three tests in 31 adult cases of smear positive, acute, uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. All three tests were done pretreatment, and on Days 8, 15 and 29. RESULTS: Compared to microscopy, the Paracheck had a sensitivity of 100%, while the OptiMal had a sensitivity of 83.7%. The lower sensitivity of OptiMal resulted from misidentification by both microscopists of 6/31 cases as Plasmodium vivax. As a follow up tool, the OptiMal was better than Paracheck, due to the earlier disappearance of the parasite LDH. Also in the Paracheck, between microscopists, there was a significant difference in reading the tests, on Days 8 and 15. CONCLUSION: Our study reiterates, the continued utility of conventional smear microscopy.