Rapid diagnostic tests versus peripheral smear in malaria: a comparative study

  • Dr Padmaja Kulkarni Associate Professor, Pathology Department, Kodagu Institute of Medical Sciences, Madikeri, Karnataka
  • Dr Varna I Assistant Professor, Pathology Department, Karwar Institute of Medical Sciences, Karwar, M G Road Karwar, Kodibag, Karwar, Karnataka
Keywords: Malaria diagnosis, Rapid Diagnostic test, Diagnostic accuracy

Abstract

Introduction: Malaria is one of important vector borne disease in India. It can be fatal if not treated promptly. The early diagnosis and treatment of malaria is essential to prevent complications especially in cerebral malaria.

Aims: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of Rapid Diagnostic tests (RDT) in the diagnosis of malaria.

Methods and Material: Blood samples from all clinically suspected cases of malaria were routinely subjected to peripheral smear examination and RDT for the presence of malaria parasite. Statistical analysis used: Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive predictive value and Negative predictive value were analyzed using standard formulae.

Results: RDT are having Sensitivity, specificity, Positive Predictive Value and Negative Predictive value of 100%, 96.7%, 92.5% and 100% respectively.

Conclusions: RDTs are equally or more sensitive and specific than peripheral smear. Newer Pf /Pv specific antigen RDT kits can distinguish mixed and PF infections. However further studies are required to assess cost effectiveness and efficiency of different RDTs.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. WHO. World Malaria Report 2014. WHO, Geneva. 2014. Available at http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/144852/2/9789241564830_eng.pdf

2. Yan J, Nana Li, Xu Wei, Peipei Li, Zhenjun Z, Lili W et al.: Performance of two rapid diagnostic tests for malaria diagnosis at the China-Myanmar border area. Malaria Journal 2013 12:73. [PubMed]

3. Wilson LM. Laboratory Diagnosis of Malaria conventional and Rapid Diagnostic Methods. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013 Jun;137(6):805-11. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2011-0602-RA. [PubMed]

4. Chansuda W, Mazie BJ, Muth S, Awalludin S, Walther HW. A Review of Malaria Diagnostic Tools: Microscopy and Rapid Diagnostic Test(RDT). Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2007 Dec;77(6 Suppl):119-27. [PubMed]

5. Osei-Kwakye K, Asante KP, Mahama E, Apanga S, Owusu R, et al. (2013) The Benefits or Otherwise of Managing Malaria Cases with or without Laboratory Diagnosis: The Experience in a District Hospital in Ghana. PLoS ONE 8(3): e58107. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0058107.

6. Rajini Kurup, Rena Marks. A comparison of microscopic examination and rapid diagnostic tests used in Guyana to diagnose malaria. Malaria Reports 2012; 2:e2.doi:10.4081/malaria.2012.e2.

7. Hada S, Das ML, Singh YL. Diagnostic methods of malaria in Eastern Nepal: a comparative study of traditional and two rapid diagnostic tests. Nepal Med Coll J 2011; 13(4): 261-266. [PubMed]

8. Ouattara A, Doumbo S, Saye R, Beavogui AH, Traoré B, Djimdé A, Niangaly A, Kayentao K, Diallo M, Doumbo OK, Thera MA. Use of a pLDH-based dipstick in the diagnostic and therapeutic follow-up of malaria patients in Mali. Malar J. 2011 Nov 24;10:345. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-10-345. [PubMed]

9. Schrot-Sanyan S, Pagnier SG, Bacar AA, Sirima SB, Candolfi E. Malaria relevance and diagnosis in febrile Burkina Faso travellers: a prospective study. Malar J. 2013 Aug 2;12:270. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-12-270.

10. Mendiratta DK, Bhutada K, Narang R, Narang P. Evaluation Of Different Methods For Diagnosis Of P. Falciparum Malaria. Indian J Med Microbiol. 2006 Jan;24(1):49-51. [PubMed]

11. Salmani MP, Mindolli PB, Peerapur BV. Comparative Study of Peripheral Blood Smear, QBC and Antigen Detection in Malaria Diagnosis. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 2011;5(5): 967-969.
Rapid diagnostic tests versus peripheral smear in malaria: a comparative study
CITATION
DOI: 10.17511/jopm.2016.i03.17
How to Cite
Dr Padmaja Kulkarni, & Dr Varna I. (1). Rapid diagnostic tests versus peripheral smear in malaria: a comparative study . Tropical Journal of Pathology and Microbiology, 2(3), 179-182. https://doi.org/10.17511/jopm.2016.i03.17
Section
Original Article