Literature DB >> 17683979

Comparison of Quantitative Buffy Coat technique (QBC) with Giemsa-stained Thick Film (GTF) for diagnosis of malaria.

G O Adeoye1, I C Nga.   

Abstract

The renewed interest in the use of fluorescent microscopy for malaria diagnosis prompted the comparison of Quantitative Buffy Coat technique (QBC) with the old standard Giemsa-stained Thick blood Film (GTF) in Ikeja General Hospital, now Lagos State University Teaching Hospital, in Lagos. Blood samples were collected from 353 patients, each examined with the QBC and GTF techniques. Of these, 68 were positive with GTF, 70 with QBC giving a positive rate of 19.3% and 19.8% respectively. The malaria positive rate was calculated as 19.3% using GTF as the standard. In general, females recorded higher percentages (58.6% and 54.4%) than males (41.4% and 45.6%) among those positive with QBC and GTF respectively. The overall sensitivity rate for QBC was 55.9% and the specificity was 88.8%. The positive and negative predictive values of QBC compared to GTF were 54.3%, 89.4% respectively while the concordance of the two techniques was 82.4%. These values were lower than those reported for QBC in previous studies. The sensitivity of QBC reduced further (33.3%) with samples having low parasite density (<1000 parasites/ul). QBC test was not able to accurately differentiate between different Plasmodium species but with the GTF, 86.7% of the infected individuals had Plasmodium falciparum, 7.5% had P. malariae and only 5.9% had mixed infections. In spite of the speed and simplicity of QBC technique, it cannot be considered an acceptable alternative to GTF under routine clinical laboratory situation. However, its speed and ease of use make it an important new tool for the diagnosis of malaria.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17683979     DOI: 10.1016/j.parint.2007.06.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Parasitol Int        ISSN: 1383-5769            Impact factor:   2.230


  9 in total

1.  Quantitative buffy coat (QBC) test for rapid diagnosis of malaria.

Authors:  G P Prashanth
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2011-10-04       Impact factor: 3.183

Review 2.  Image analysis and machine learning for detecting malaria.

Authors:  Mahdieh Poostchi; Kamolrat Silamut; Richard J Maude; Stefan Jaeger; George Thoma
Journal:  Transl Res       Date:  2018-01-12       Impact factor: 7.012

Review 3.  Malaria diagnosis: a brief review.

Authors:  Noppadon Tangpukdee; Chatnapa Duangdee; Polrat Wilairatana; Srivicha Krudsood
Journal:  Korean J Parasitol       Date:  2009-05-26       Impact factor: 1.341

4.  Use of buffy coat thick films in detecting malaria parasites in patients with negative conventional thick films.

Authors:  Chatnapa Duangdee; Noppadon Tangpukdee; Srivicha Krudsood; Polrat Wilairatana
Journal:  Asian Pac J Trop Biomed       Date:  2012-04

Review 5.  A research agenda for malaria eradication: diagnoses and diagnostics.

Authors: 
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2011-01-25       Impact factor: 11.069

6.  Towards ultrasensitive malaria diagnosis using surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy.

Authors:  Keren Chen; Clement Yuen; Yaw Aniweh; Peter Preiser; Quan Liu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-02-09       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  A 'smart' tube holder enables real-time sample monitoring in a standard lab centrifuge.

Authors:  Tony Hoang; Nicholas Moskwa; Ken Halvorsen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-04-16       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  A COMPARISON OF RAPID DIAGNOSTIC TESTING (BY PLASMODIUM LACTATE DEHYDROGENASE), AND QUANTITATIVE BUFFY COAT TECHNIQUE IN MALARIA DIAGNOSIS IN CHILDREN.

Authors:  Ifeanyi Kanayo Ifeorah; Biobele J Brown; Olugbemiro O Sodeinde
Journal:  Afr J Infect Dis       Date:  2017-06-08

Review 9.  Multi-Omics Advancements towards Plasmodium vivax Malaria Diagnosis.

Authors:  Shalini Aggarwal; Weng Kung Peng; Sanjeeva Srivastava
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-11-28
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.