OBJECTIVE: To compare the two methods of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) and microscopy in the diagnosis of malaria. METHODS: RDTs and microscopy were carried out to diagnose malaria. Percentage malaria parasitaemia was calculated on thin films and all non-acute cases of plasmodiasis with less than 0.001% malaria parasitaemia were regarded as negative. Results were simply presented as percentage positive of the total number of patients under study. The results of RDTs were compared to those of microscopy while those of RDTs based on antigen were compared to those of RDTs based on antibody. Patients' follow-up was made for all cases. RESULTS: All the 200 patients under present study tested positive to RDTs based on malaria antibodies (serum) method (100%). 128 out of 200 tested positive to RDTs based on malaria antigen (whole blood) method (64%), while 118 out of 200 patients under present study tested positive to visual microscopy of Lieshman and diluted Giemsa (59%). All patients that tested positive to microscopy also tested positive to RDTs based on antigen. All patients on the second day of follow-up were non-febrile and had antimalaria drugs. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude based on the present study that the RDTs based on malaria antigen (whole blood) method is as specific as the traditional microscopy and even appears more sensitive than microscopy. The RDTs based on antibody (serum) method is unspecific thus it should not be encouraged. It is most likely that Africa being an endemic region, formation of certain levels of malaria antibody may not be uncommon. The present study also supports the opinion that a good number of febrile cases is not due to malaria. We support WHO's report on cost effectiveness of RDTs but, recommend that only the antigen based method should possibly, be adopted in Africa and other malaria endemic regions of the world.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the two methods of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) and microscopy in the diagnosis of malaria. METHODS: RDTs and microscopy were carried out to diagnose malaria. Percentage malaria parasitaemia was calculated on thin films and all non-acute cases of plasmodiasis with less than 0.001% malaria parasitaemia were regarded as negative. Results were simply presented as percentage positive of the total number of patients under study. The results of RDTs were compared to those of microscopy while those of RDTs based on antigen were compared to those of RDTs based on antibody. Patients' follow-up was made for all cases. RESULTS: All the 200 patients under present study tested positive to RDTs based on malaria antibodies (serum) method (100%). 128 out of 200 tested positive to RDTs based on malaria antigen (whole blood) method (64%), while 118 out of 200 patients under present study tested positive to visual microscopy of Lieshman and diluted Giemsa (59%). All patients that tested positive to microscopy also tested positive to RDTs based on antigen. All patients on the second day of follow-up were non-febrile and had antimalaria drugs. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude based on the present study that the RDTs based on malaria antigen (whole blood) method is as specific as the traditional microscopy and even appears more sensitive than microscopy. The RDTs based on antibody (serum) method is unspecific thus it should not be encouraged. It is most likely that Africa being an endemic region, formation of certain levels of malaria antibody may not be uncommon. The present study also supports the opinion that a good number of febrile cases is not due to malaria. We support WHO's report on cost effectiveness of RDTs but, recommend that only the antigen based method should possibly, be adopted in Africa and other malaria endemic regions of the world.
Authors: Samuel Shillcutt; Chantal Morel; Catherine Goodman; Paul Coleman; David Bell; Christopher J M Whitty; A Mills Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: J Russ Forney; Chansuda Wongsrichanalai; Alan J Magill; Leslie G Craig; Jeeraphat Sirichaisinthop; Christian T Bautista; R Scott Miller; Christian F Ockenhouse; Kent E Kester; Naomi E Aronson; Ellen M Andersen; Higinio A Quino-Ascurra; Carlos Vidal; Kimberly A Moran; Clinton K Murray; Caroline Cady DeWitt; D Gray Heppner; Kevin C Kain; W Ripley Ballou; Robert A Gasser Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: M James Eliades; Jolene Wun; Sarah M Burnett; Fozo Alombah; Felicia Amoo-Sakyi; Petros Chirambo; Goodluck Tesha; Kelly M Davis; Paul Hamilton Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Olugbenga A Mokuolu; Godwin N Ntadom; Olufemi O Ajumobi; Roberts A Alero; Robinson D Wammanda; Olanrewaju T Adedoyin; Henrietta U Okafor; Adekunle D Alabi; Friday A Odey; Chimere O Agomo; Kate U Edozieh; Tolulope O Fagbemi; Ahmad M Njidda; Seye Babatunde; Emmanuel C Agbo; Nnamdi B Nwaneri; Emmanuel D Shekarau; Temitope O Obasa; Nnenna M Ezeigwe Journal: Malar J Date: 2016-01-04 Impact factor: 2.979
Authors: Karen N Zablon; Charles Kakilla; Tatiana Lykina; Victoria Minakova; Alphaxad Chibago; Zanda Bochkaeva Journal: Malar Res Treat Date: 2015-11-19