Comparative evaluation of traditional and molecular diagnostic methods for malaria: An analysis of performance.

Q3 Medicine
Tropical Parasitology Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-15 DOI:10.4103/tp.tp_38_23
Kiran Chawla, Vinay Khanna, V Sukrita Ayer, Ruchee Khanna
{"title":"Comparative evaluation of traditional and molecular diagnostic methods for malaria: An analysis of performance.","authors":"Kiran Chawla, Vinay Khanna, V Sukrita Ayer, Ruchee Khanna","doi":"10.4103/tp.tp_38_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>As we edge closer to the eradication of malaria, several methods for detecting <i>Plasmodium</i> species have been developed, including peripheral blood smear examination (PBS), rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), serological evaluations, fluorescent microscopy, polymerase chain reactions (PCRs), fluorescent <i>in situ</i> hybridization, and flow cytometry. The suitability of these tools for routine diagnosis requires evaluation, considering both their diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Our study compared four diagnostic techniques for malaria: PBS, quantitative buffy coat (QBC), RDT, and PCR. We used PCR as the benchmark standard and statistically assessed the performance of PBS, QBC, and RDT against PCR in detecting malaria. Adopting a prospective observational approach, we collected blood samples from 117 patients exhibiting the symptoms suggestive of malaria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The findings from our study showed that PBS had a positivity rate of 93.4%, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.881-0.987, indicating reliable results for a similar population. The QBC assay demonstrated an elevated positivity rate of 96.7% with a solid 95% CI of 0.930-1.000. Although the RDT had a slightly lower rate of 92.4%, it still delivered dependable results, presenting a significant 95% CI of 0.868-0.980, ensuring a robust diagnostic performance compared to PCR.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PCR is a reliable test when the identification of the specific species is inconclusive. Conversely, the commonly used PBS occasionally overlooks positive malaria cases due to the specialized skills needed for accurate reading. The cost-effective RDT is feasible for field operations without the need for expert knowledge. However, it fails to differentiate between old and new infections. Meanwhile, the QBC test, known for its sensitivity and speed, can be consistently employed for malaria diagnosis in a tertiary care settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":37825,"journal":{"name":"Tropical Parasitology","volume":"14 1","pages":"30-35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10911188/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tropical Parasitology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/tp.tp_38_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: As we edge closer to the eradication of malaria, several methods for detecting Plasmodium species have been developed, including peripheral blood smear examination (PBS), rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs), serological evaluations, fluorescent microscopy, polymerase chain reactions (PCRs), fluorescent in situ hybridization, and flow cytometry. The suitability of these tools for routine diagnosis requires evaluation, considering both their diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness.

Materials and methods: Our study compared four diagnostic techniques for malaria: PBS, quantitative buffy coat (QBC), RDT, and PCR. We used PCR as the benchmark standard and statistically assessed the performance of PBS, QBC, and RDT against PCR in detecting malaria. Adopting a prospective observational approach, we collected blood samples from 117 patients exhibiting the symptoms suggestive of malaria.

Results: The findings from our study showed that PBS had a positivity rate of 93.4%, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.881-0.987, indicating reliable results for a similar population. The QBC assay demonstrated an elevated positivity rate of 96.7% with a solid 95% CI of 0.930-1.000. Although the RDT had a slightly lower rate of 92.4%, it still delivered dependable results, presenting a significant 95% CI of 0.868-0.980, ensuring a robust diagnostic performance compared to PCR.

Conclusion: PCR is a reliable test when the identification of the specific species is inconclusive. Conversely, the commonly used PBS occasionally overlooks positive malaria cases due to the specialized skills needed for accurate reading. The cost-effective RDT is feasible for field operations without the need for expert knowledge. However, it fails to differentiate between old and new infections. Meanwhile, the QBC test, known for its sensitivity and speed, can be consistently employed for malaria diagnosis in a tertiary care settings.

疟疾传统诊断方法与分子诊断方法的比较评估:性能分析。
目的:随着我们距离根除疟疾越来越近,已经开发出多种检测疟原虫的方法,包括外周血涂片检查(PBS)、快速诊断检测(RDT)、血清学评估、荧光显微镜、聚合酶链反应(PCR)、荧光原位杂交和流式细胞术。需要对这些工具是否适合常规诊断进行评估,同时考虑其诊断准确性和成本效益:我们的研究比较了四种疟疾诊断技术:PBS、定量水包衣(QBC)、RDT 和 PCR。我们将 PCR 作为基准标准,并用统计学方法评估了 PBS、QBC 和 RDT 与 PCR 在检测疟疾方面的性能。我们采用前瞻性观察方法,采集了 117 名表现出疟疾症状的患者的血样:我们的研究结果表明,PBS 的阳性率为 93.4%,95% 置信区间(CI)为 0.881-0.987,表明在类似人群中结果可靠。QBC 检测的阳性率为 96.7%,95% 置信区间为 0.930-1.000。尽管 RDT 的阳性率略低(92.4%),但其结果仍然可靠,95% CI 为 0.868-0.980,与 PCR 相比确保了可靠的诊断性能:结论:在无法确定特定物种时,PCR 是一种可靠的检测方法。相反,常用的 PBS 由于准确读数需要专业技能,偶尔会忽略阳性疟疾病例。成本效益高的 RDT 可用于野外作业,无需专业知识。但是,它无法区分新旧感染。同时,QBC 检验以灵敏和快速著称,可在三级医疗机构中持续用于疟疾诊断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Tropical Parasitology
Tropical Parasitology Medicine-Infectious Diseases
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: Tropical Parasitology, a publication of Indian Academy of Tropical Parasitology, is a peer-reviewed online journal with Semiannual print on demand compilation of issues published. The journal’s full text is available online at www.tropicalparasitology.org. The journal allows free access (Open Access) to its contents and permits authors to self-archive final accepted version of the articles on any OAI-compliant institutional / subject-based repository. The journal will cover technical and clinical studies related to health, ethical and social issues in field of parasitology. Articles with clinical interest and implications will be given preference.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信