| Literature DB >> 29115991 |
Caesar Oyet1, Michelle E Roh2, Gertrude N Kiwanuka3, Patrick Orikiriza4, Martina Wade2, Sunil Parikh2, Juliet Mwanga-Amumpaire3,4, Yap Boum3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis of suspected malaria cases with a rapid diagnostic test (RDT) has been shown to be an effective malaria control tool used in many resource-constrained settings. However, poor quality control and quality assurance hinder the accurate reporting of malaria diagnoses. Recent use of a portable, battery operated RDT reader (Deki Reader™, Fio Corporation) has shown to have high agreement with visual inspection across diverse health centre settings, however evidence of its feasibility and usability during cross sectional surveys are limited. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the Deki Reader™ in a cross-sectional survey of children from southwestern Uganda.Entities:
Keywords: Deki Reader™; Malaria; Malaria surveillance; Rapid diagnostic test; Uganda
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29115991 PMCID: PMC5678817 DOI: 10.1186/s12936-017-2094-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Malar J ISSN: 1475-2875 Impact factor: 2.979
Demographic characteristics of the study participants
| Characteristic | Mbarara (n = 236) | Bushenyi (n = 127) | Isingiro (n = 203) | Total (N = 566) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male (%) | 112 (47.5) | 61 (48.0) | 105 (51.7) | 278 (49.1) |
| Female (%) | 124 (52.5) | 66 (52.0) | 94 (48.3) | 288 (50.9) |
| Age (years), mean ± SD | 2.38 ± 1.24 | 2.33 ± 1.20 | 2.41 ± 1.32 | 2.38 ± 1.26 |
| Rural (%) | 177 (75.0) | 103 (81.1) | 132 (65.0) | 412 (72.8) |
| Urban (%) | 59 (25.0) | 24 (18.9) | 71 (35.0) | 154 (27.2) |
Comparison of SD Bioline Malaria Ag Pf/Pan RDT interpretation between the Deki Reader™ and visual inspection
| Visual inspection | Kappa (95% CI) | Percent agreement (95% CI) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | Positive | Negative | Overall | ||
| Deki Reader™ | ||||||
| Positive | 36 | 4 | 0.92 (0.85–0.98) | 94.7 (82.3–99.4) | 99.2 (98.1–99.8) | 98.9 (92.3–99.8) |
| Negative | 2 | 524 | ||||
Performance of visual interpretation and Deki Reader™ of the SD Bioline Malaria Ag Pf/Pan RDT against microscopy
| Microscopy | Sensitivity (95% CI) | p-value* | Specificity (95% CI) | p-value* | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | |||||
| Visual interpretation | ||||||
| Positive | 15 | 23 | 88.2 (63.7, 98.5) | 95.8 (93.8, 97.3) | ||
| Negative | 2 | 526 | 0.4 | 0.06 | ||
| Deki Reader™ | ||||||
| Positive | 16 | 24 | 94.1 (73.0, 99.0) | 95.5 (93.4, 96.9) | ||
| Negative | 1 | 525 | ||||
*Reported p-value using McNemar’s test to assess difference in sensitivity between visual inspection and the Deki Reader™