BACKGROUND: The WHO recommendation for parasitological diagnosis of malaria wherever possible is challenged by evidence of poor-quality microscopy in African hospitals but the reasons are not clear. METHODS: All 12 of the busier district hospital laboratories from three regions of Tanzania were assessed for quality of the working environment and slide readers read 10 reference slides under exam conditions. Slides that had been routinely read were removed for expert reading. RESULTS: Of 44 slide readers in the study, 39 (88.6%) correctly read >90% of the reference slides. Of 206 slides that had been routinely read, 33 (16%) were judged to be unreadable, 104 (51%) were readable with difficulty, and 69 (34%) were easily readable. Compared to expert reading of the same slide, the sensitivity of routine slide results of easily readable slides was 85.7% (95% confidence interval: 77.4-94.0), falling to 44.4% (95% confidence interval: 34.5-54.4) for slides that were 'readable with difficulty'. CONCLUSIONS: The commonest cause of inaccurate results was the quality of the slide itself, correction of which is likely to be achievable within existing resources. A minority of slide readers were unable to read slides even under ideal conditions, suggesting the need for a 'slide reading licence' scheme.
BACKGROUND: The WHO recommendation for parasitological diagnosis of malaria wherever possible is challenged by evidence of poor-quality microscopy in African hospitals but the reasons are not clear. METHODS: All 12 of the busier district hospital laboratories from three regions of Tanzania were assessed for quality of the working environment and slide readers read 10 reference slides under exam conditions. Slides that had been routinely read were removed for expert reading. RESULTS: Of 44 slide readers in the study, 39 (88.6%) correctly read >90% of the reference slides. Of 206 slides that had been routinely read, 33 (16%) were judged to be unreadable, 104 (51%) were readable with difficulty, and 69 (34%) were easily readable. Compared to expert reading of the same slide, the sensitivity of routine slide results of easily readable slides was 85.7% (95% confidence interval: 77.4-94.0), falling to 44.4% (95% confidence interval: 34.5-54.4) for slides that were 'readable with difficulty'. CONCLUSIONS: The commonest cause of inaccurate results was the quality of the slide itself, correction of which is likely to be achievable within existing resources. A minority of slide readers were unable to read slides even under ideal conditions, suggesting the need for a 'slide reading licence' scheme.
Authors: Cathy A Petti; Christopher R Polage; Thomas C Quinn; Allan R Ronald; Merle A Sande Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2005-12-20 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Alexander K Rowe; Samantha Y Rowe; Robert W Snow; Eline L Korenromp; Joanna Rm Armstrong Schellenberg; Claudia Stein; Bernard L Nahlen; Jennifer Bryce; Robert E Black; Richard W Steketee Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2006-02-28 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: C J F Mundy; I Bates; W Nkhoma; K Floyd; G Kadewele; M Ngwira; A Khuwi; S B Squire; C F Gilks Journal: Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg Date: 2003 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.184
Authors: A Jonkman; R A Chibwe; C O Khoromana; U L Liabunya; M E Chaponda; G E Kandiero; M E Molyneux; T E Taylor Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 1995 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Hugh Reyburn; Redepmta Mbatia; Chris Drakeley; Ilona Carneiro; Emmanuel Mwakasungula; Ombeni Mwerinde; Kapalala Saganda; John Shao; Andrew Kitua; Raimos Olomi; Brian M Greenwood; Christopher J M Whitty Journal: BMJ Date: 2004-11-12
Authors: Lungowe Sitali; James Chipeta; John M Miller; Hawela B Moonga; Nirbhay Kumar; William J Moss; Charles Michelo Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2015-05-02 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Laura Ahmed; Leonard H Seal; Carol Ainley; Barbara De la Salle; Michelle Brereton; Keith Hyde; John Burthem; William Samuel Gilmore Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 5.428