Theodoor Visser1, Sumedh Ramachandra2, Emilie Pothin3, Jan Jacobs4,5, Jane Cunningham6, Arnaud Le Menach2, Michelle L Gatton7, Samaly Dos Santos Souza8, Sydney Nelson9, Luke Rooney2, Michael Aidoo8. 1. Clinton Health Access Initiative, Boston, USA. tvisser@clintonhealthaccess.org. 2. Clinton Health Access Initiative, Boston, USA. 3. Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland. 4. Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium. 5. Department of Microbiology and Immunology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 6. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. 7. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. 8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, USA. 9. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends confirmatory diagnosis by microscopy or malaria rapid diagnostic test (RDT) in patients with suspected malaria. In recent years, mobile medical applications (MMAs), which can interpret RDT test results have entered the market. To evaluate the performance of commercially available MMAs, an evaluation was conducted by comparing RDT results read by MMAs to RDT results read by the human eye. METHODS: Five different MMAs were evaluated on six different RDT products using cultured Plasmodium falciparum blood samples at five dilutions ranging from 20 to 1000 parasites (p)/microlitre (µl) and malaria negative blood samples. The RDTs were performed in a controlled, laboratory setting by a trained operator who visually read the RDT results. A second trained operator then used the MMAs to read the RDT results. Sensitivity (Sn) and specificity (Sp) for the RDTs were calculated in a Bayesian framework using mixed models. RESULTS: The RDT Sn of the P. falciparum (Pf) test line, when read by the trained human eye was significantly higher compared to when read by MMAs (74% vs. average 47%) at samples of 20 p/µl. In higher density samples, the Sn was comparable to the human eye (97%) for three MMAs. The RDT Sn of test lines that detect all Plasmodium species (Pan line), when read by the trained human eye was significantly higher compared to when read by MMAs (79% vs. average 56%) across all densities. The RDT Sp, when read by the human eye or MMAs was 99% for both the Pf and Pan test lines across all densities. CONCLUSIONS: The study results show that in a laboratory setting, most MMAs produced similar results interpreting the Pf test line of RDTs at parasite densities typically found in patients that experience malaria symptoms (> 100 p/µl) compared to the human eye. At low parasite densities for the Pf line and across all parasite densities for the Pan line, MMAs were less accurate than the human eye. Future efforts should focus on improving the band/line detection at lower band intensities and evaluating additional MMA functionalities like the ability to identify and classify RDT errors or anomalies.
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends confirmatory diagnosis by microscopy or malaria rapid diagnostic test (RDT) in patients with suspected malaria. In recent years, mobile medical applications (MMAs), which can interpret RDT test results have entered the market. To evaluate the performance of commercially available MMAs, an evaluation was conducted by comparing RDT results read by MMAs to RDT results read by the human eye. METHODS: Five different MMAs were evaluated on six different RDT products using cultured Plasmodium falciparum blood samples at five dilutions ranging from 20 to 1000 parasites (p)/microlitre (µl) and malaria negative blood samples. The RDTs were performed in a controlled, laboratory setting by a trained operator who visually read the RDT results. A second trained operator then used the MMAs to read the RDT results. Sensitivity (Sn) and specificity (Sp) for the RDTs were calculated in a Bayesian framework using mixed models. RESULTS: The RDT Sn of the P. falciparum (Pf) test line, when read by the trained human eye was significantly higher compared to when read by MMAs (74% vs. average 47%) at samples of 20 p/µl. In higher density samples, the Sn was comparable to the human eye (97%) for three MMAs. The RDT Sn of test lines that detect all Plasmodium species (Pan line), when read by the trained human eye was significantly higher compared to when read by MMAs (79% vs. average 56%) across all densities. The RDT Sp, when read by the human eye or MMAs was 99% for both the Pf and Pan test lines across all densities. CONCLUSIONS: The study results show that in a laboratory setting, most MMAs produced similar results interpreting the Pf test line of RDTs at parasite densities typically found in patients that experience malaria symptoms (> 100 p/µl) compared to the human eye. At low parasite densities for the Pf line and across all parasite densities for the Pan line, MMAs were less accurate than the human eye. Future efforts should focus on improving the band/line detection at lower band intensities and evaluating additional MMA functionalities like the ability to identify and classify RDT errors or anomalies.
Entities:
Keywords:
Accuracy; App; Diagnosis; Diagnostics; Malaria; Mobile medical application; RDT; Rapid Diagnostic Test; Reader; Sensitivity; Specificity; mHealth
Authors: Davidson H Hamer; Erin Twohig Brooks; Katherine Semrau; Portipher Pilingana; William B MacLeod; Kazungu Siazeele; Lora L Sabin; Donald M Thea; Kojo Yeboah-Antwi Journal: Pathog Glob Health Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Esmée Ruizendaal; Susan Dierickx; Koen Peeters Grietens; Henk D F H Schallig; Franco Pagnoni; Petra F Mens Journal: Malar J Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 2.979
Authors: Youssoupha Ndiaye; Jean L A Ndiaye; Badara Cisse; Demetri Blanas; Jonas Bassene; Isaac A Manga; Mansour Ndiath; Sylvain L Faye; Mamoudou Bocoum; Mouhamed Ndiaye; Pape M Thior; Doudou Sene; Paul Milligan; Omar Gaye; David Schellenberg Journal: Malar J Date: 2013-07-12 Impact factor: 2.979
Authors: David O Soti; Stephen N Kinoti; Ahmeddin H Omar; John Logedi; Teresa K Mwendwa; Zahra Hirji; Santiago Ferro Journal: Malar J Date: 2015-11-04 Impact factor: 2.979
Authors: Jeremiah Laktabai; Alyssa Platt; Diana Menya; Elizabeth L Turner; Daniel Aswa; Stephen Kinoti; Wendy Prudhomme O'Meara Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Katherine Torres; Christine M Bachman; Charles B Delahunt; Jhonatan Alarcon Baldeon; Freddy Alava; Dionicia Gamboa Vilela; Stephane Proux; Courosh Mehanian; Shawn K McGuire; Clay M Thompson; Travis Ostbye; Liming Hu; Mayoore S Jaiswal; Victoria M Hunt; David Bell Journal: Malar J Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 2.979