Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

The accuracy of techniques for the diagnosis of malaria are usually compared with optical microscopy, which is considered to be a gold standard. However, microscopy is prone to error and therefore makes it difficult to assess the reliability of other diagnostic techniques. We did a systematic review to assess the specificity and sensitivity of diagnostic techniques in different settings, using a statistical method that avoided defining a gold standard. Performance varied depending on species of the malaria parasite, level of parasitaemia, and immunity. Overall, histidine-rich protein 2 (HRP2)-based dipsticks showed a high sensitivity (92.7%) and specificity (99.2%) for Plasmodium falciparum in endemic areas. The acridine orange test was more sensitive (97.1%) in detecting P falciparum in epidemiological studies, with a specificity of 97.9%. In the absence of a gold standard, HRP2 dipsticks and acridine orange could provide an alternative for detecting falciparum infections in endemic areas and epidemiological studies, respectively. Microscopy still remains more reliable in detecting non-falciparum infections.

Original publication

DOI

10.1016/S1473-3099(06)70579-5

Type

Journal article

Journal

Lancet Infect Dis

Publication Date

09/2006

Volume

6

Pages

582 - 588

Keywords

Animals, Humans, Malaria, Microscopy, Patient Selection, Plasmodium, Reproducibility of Results, Sensitivity and Specificity