| Literature DB >> 26881056 |
Abstract
Background. Laboratory diagnosis of malaria is the key for effective disease management. Diagnosis of malaria infection requires rapid, sensitive, and specific test methods with an affordable cost. This study was aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of Partec rapid malaria test with reference to light microscopy for the diagnosis of malaria in Northwest Ethiopia. Methods. A total of 180 febrile patients were tested for malaria using Giemsa stain microscopy and Partec rapid malaria test from June to July 2013 at Gendewuha health centers, Metema district. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 20 statistical software. Odds ratio with 95% CI was calculated. Result. The sensitivity and specificity of Partec rapid malaria test were 93.8% (95% CI = 87.1%-100%) and 87.9% (95% CI = 79.7%-96.1%), respectively, while the positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 6.4% (95% CI = 77.2%-95.5%) and 94.6% (95% CI = 88.7%-100%), respectively. There was also an excellent agreement between two tests with Kappa value of 0.811 (95% CI = 0.625-0.996). Conclusion. Partec rapid malaria test showed good sensitivity and specificity with an excellent agreement to the reference light microscopy. Therefore PT can be considered as alternative diagnostic tools in malaria endemic areas.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26881056 PMCID: PMC4737045 DOI: 10.1155/2016/3479457
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Parasitol Res ISSN: 2090-0023
Figure 1Partec CyScope fluorescence microscope and malaria parasites (adapted from [11]).
Sociodemographic characteristics of patients and malaria positivity by light microscopy Gendewuha health center, Northwest Ethiopia, from June to July, 2013.
| Characteristics | Light microscopy | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tested patients | Positive | Negative | COR | 95% CI | AOR | 95% CI | |
| Gender | |||||||
| Male | 99 (55.0) | 53 (53.5) | 46 (46.5) | 0.459 | 0.250–0.839 | ||
| Female | 81 (45.0) | 28 (34.6) | 53 (65.4) | 1 | |||
| Age in years | |||||||
| 1–9 | 51 (28.3) | 15 (29.4) | 36 (70.6) | 1.029 | 0.234–4.521 | ||
| 10–19 | 44 (24.4) | 17 (38.6) | 27 (61.4) | 0.681 | 0.155–2.997 | ||
| 20–29 | 60 (33.3) | 42 (70.0) | 18 (30.0) | 0.199 | 0.046–0.853 | 0.179 | 0.040–0.792 |
| 30–39 | 15 (8.3) | 5 (33.3) | 10 (66.7) | 0.857 | 0.152–4.819 | ||
| ≥40 | 10 (5.6) | 3 (30.0) | 7 (70.0) | 1 | |||
| Residence | |||||||
| Rural | 86 (47.8) | 49 (57.0) | 37 (43.0) | 0.390 | 0.213–0.713 | 0.437 | 0.0228–0.835 |
| Urban | 94 (52.2) | 32 (34.0) | 62 (66.0) | 1 | |||
| Educational background | |||||||
| Illiterate | 76 (42.2) | 39 (51.3) | 37 (48.7) | 0.632 | 0.100–4.00 | ||
| Read and write | 39 (21.7) | 17 (43.6) | 22 (56.4) | 0.863 | 0.129–5.756 | ||
| Primary school | 51 (28.3) | 21 (41.2) | 30 (58.8) | 1.033 | 0.158–6.741 | ||
| Secondary | 9 (5.0) | 3 (33.3) | 6 (66.7) | 1.333 | 0.139–12.818 | ||
| College/university | 5 (2.8) | 2 (40.0) | 3 (60.0) | 1 | |||
| Occupation | |||||||
| Farmer | 39 (21.7) | 18 (46.2) | 21 (53.8) | 0.648 | 0.184–2.28 | ||
| Merchant | 34 (18.9) | 10 (29.4) | 24 (70.6) | 1.33 | 0.357–4.98 | ||
| Civil servant | 7 (3.9) | 2 (28.6) | 5 (71.4) | 1.389 | 0.194–9.96 | ||
| Daily laborers | 47 (26.1) | 31 (66.0) | 16 (34.0) | 0.287 | 0.082–0.99 | ||
| Housewife | 30 (16.7) | 12 (40.0) | 18 (60.0) | 0.833 | 0.224–3.10 | ||
| Private | 9 (5.0) | 4 (44.4) | 5 (55.6) | 0.694 | 0.126–3.83 | ||
| Student | 14 (7.8) | 5 (35.7) | 9 (64.3) | 1 | |||
N = number; COR = crude odds ratio; AOR = adjusted odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.
Results of light microscopy and Partec rapid malaria test.
| Light microscopy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | Total | ||
| Partec rapid malaria test | Positive | 76 | 12 | 88 |
| Negative | 5 | 87 | 92 | |
| Total | 81 | 99 | 180 | |
Performance of Partec rapid malaria test using light microscopy as a standard.
| Test | Sensitivity% | Specificity% | PPV% | NPV% | Kappa value% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Partec rapid malaria test | 93.8% | 87.9% | 86.4% | 94.6% | 81.1% |