Comparison of malaria diagnostic methods in four hospitals in the Volta region of Ghana.

MalariaWorld journal Pub Date : 2016-06-10 eCollection Date: 2016-01-01 DOI:10.5281/zenodo.10797112
Bismarck Dinko, Reuben Ayivor-Djanie, James Abugri, Eric Agboli, Gideon Kye-Duodu, Senyo Tagboto, John Tampuori, Festus Adzaku, Fred N Binka, Gordon A Awandare
{"title":"Comparison of malaria diagnostic methods in four hospitals in the Volta region of Ghana.","authors":"Bismarck Dinko, Reuben Ayivor-Djanie, James Abugri, Eric Agboli, Gideon Kye-Duodu, Senyo Tagboto, John Tampuori, Festus Adzaku, Fred N Binka, Gordon A Awandare","doi":"10.5281/zenodo.10797112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) and microscopy are routinely used for the diagnosis of malaria in Ghana. DNA-based polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is not yet used routinely. We compared diagnostic methods and tested the sensitivities of different malaria diagnostic methods against PCR.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Study participants from four hospitals with a suspicion of malaria donated finger -prick blood for RDT and blood film examination. In addition, a blood spot was collected for PCR analysis, prior to treatment. Retrospective species-specific PCR was performed on all samples collected.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Using PCR we found an overall malaria prevalence of 39% among the 211 evaluable blood spots (83/211) and this ranged between 6-61% across the four hospitals. Of the 164 participants with RDT data, malaria prevalence was 57% (94/164), ranging from 3-100% from the four hospitals. Microscopy was the least sensitive with a parasite prevalence of 21% (25/119) of the evaluable 119 participants, varying from 9 to 35% across three health facilities. By comparison, we found the sensitivities and specificities of RDT results when compared to PCR to be slightly higher than microscopy compared to PCR. These were 56.4% versus 41.7% and 90% versus 81.9%, respectively, but generally lower than expected. Ninety-five percent of the PCR-detected infections were <i>P. falciparum</i>, while 4% were mixed species infections of <i>P. falciparum</i> and <i>P. malariae</i>, with the remaining being a mono-infection of <i>P. malariae</i>.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While using PCR as a gold standard, we found RDT to be more reliable in diagnosing malaria than microscopy. In addition, a majority of malaria-treated cases were not supported by PCR diagnosis, leading to possible overtreatment. Pragmatic strategies are needed to ensure suspected malaria cases are accurately diagnosed before treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":74100,"journal":{"name":"MalariaWorld journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11003212/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MalariaWorld journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10797112","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) and microscopy are routinely used for the diagnosis of malaria in Ghana. DNA-based polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is not yet used routinely. We compared diagnostic methods and tested the sensitivities of different malaria diagnostic methods against PCR.

Materials and methods: Study participants from four hospitals with a suspicion of malaria donated finger -prick blood for RDT and blood film examination. In addition, a blood spot was collected for PCR analysis, prior to treatment. Retrospective species-specific PCR was performed on all samples collected.

Results: Using PCR we found an overall malaria prevalence of 39% among the 211 evaluable blood spots (83/211) and this ranged between 6-61% across the four hospitals. Of the 164 participants with RDT data, malaria prevalence was 57% (94/164), ranging from 3-100% from the four hospitals. Microscopy was the least sensitive with a parasite prevalence of 21% (25/119) of the evaluable 119 participants, varying from 9 to 35% across three health facilities. By comparison, we found the sensitivities and specificities of RDT results when compared to PCR to be slightly higher than microscopy compared to PCR. These were 56.4% versus 41.7% and 90% versus 81.9%, respectively, but generally lower than expected. Ninety-five percent of the PCR-detected infections were P. falciparum, while 4% were mixed species infections of P. falciparum and P. malariae, with the remaining being a mono-infection of P. malariae.

Conclusions: While using PCR as a gold standard, we found RDT to be more reliable in diagnosing malaria than microscopy. In addition, a majority of malaria-treated cases were not supported by PCR diagnosis, leading to possible overtreatment. Pragmatic strategies are needed to ensure suspected malaria cases are accurately diagnosed before treatment.

加纳沃尔特地区四家医院疟疾诊断方法的比较。
背景:快速诊断检测(RDT)和显微镜检查是加纳诊断疟疾的常规方法。基于 DNA 的聚合酶链反应(PCR)尚未被常规使用。我们比较了各种诊断方法,并测试了不同疟疾诊断方法对 PCR 的敏感性:来自四家医院的疑似疟疾患者捐献了指尖采血,以进行 RDT 和血片检查。此外,在治疗前还采集了一个血点进行 PCR 分析。对收集到的所有样本进行了回顾性物种特异性 PCR 分析:通过 PCR 分析,我们发现在 211 个可评估血点(83/211)中,疟疾的总体流行率为 39%,四家医院的流行率介于 6-61% 之间。在 164 名有 RDT 数据的参与者中,疟疾流行率为 57%(94/164),四家医院的流行率介于 3-100% 之间。显微镜检查的灵敏度最低,在可评估的 119 名参与者中,寄生虫感染率为 21%(25/119),三家医疗机构的感染率从 9% 到 35% 不等。相比之下,我们发现与 PCR 相比,RDT 检测结果的敏感性和特异性略高于显微镜检测结果。分别为 56.4% 对 41.7%,90% 对 81.9%,但总体上低于预期。在 PCR 检测出的感染病例中,95% 为恶性疟原虫感染,4% 为恶性疟原虫和疟疾疟原虫混合感染,其余为疟疾疟原虫单一感染:结论:虽然使用 PCR 作为金标准,但我们发现 RDT 在诊断疟疾方面比显微镜检查更可靠。此外,大多数疟疾治疗病例并没有得到 PCR 诊断的支持,这可能导致过度治疗。需要采取务实的策略,确保疟疾疑似病例在治疗前得到准确诊断。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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