Currently, malaria rapid diagnostic tests (mRDTs) are increasingly used for the diagnosis of malaria, particularly in communities where microscopy-based diagnosis is not practical. However, the diagnostic accuracy of mRDTs performed by community health workers (CHWs) remains unknown. This study was conducted to determine the accuracy of mRDT results performed by CHWs in Ngoma district, eastern province of Rwanda. This was a cross sectional prospective study. A total of 420 blood samples of patients self-reported to CHWs for malaria diagnosis were collected and analyzed by CHWs using mRDT, and quality control tests were performed by using microscopy as a reference test. The study was conducted from 22 April to 08 July 2021. Among the 420 patients, 234 (55.71%) were females, and 186 (44.29%) were males. Malaria test positivity was 2.62% by using mRDT and 1.67% by using microscopic tests. The sensitivity and specificity of mRDT were 85.71% and 98.78%, respectively. The negative predictive value, positive predictive value and accuracy of mRDTs were 99.75%, 54.54% and 98.57%, respectively. The sensitivity of mRDT was below the WHO recommended sensitivity (>95%), although the specificity (98.78%) was within the WHO recommended specificity (>=90). There was substantial agreement between the mRDT and malaria microscopic test results, k=0.642. mRDTs continue to be an appropriate choice for malaria diagnosis in the absence of microscopy.
Background Currently, malaria rapid diagnostic tests (mRDTs) are increasingly used for diagnosis of malaria, particularly in community where microscopy-based diagnosis is not practical. However, the diagnostic accuracy of mRDTs performed by the community health workers (CHWs) remains unknown. This study was conducted to determine the accuracy of mRDT results performed by CHWs in Ngoma district, eastern province of Rwanda. Method This was a cross sectional prospective study. 420 blood samples of patients self-reported to CHWs for malaria diagnosis were collected and analyzed by CHWs using mRDT and quality control tests were performed by using microscopy as a reference test. The study was conducted from 22nd April to 08th July, 2021. Results Among the 420 patients, 234 (55.71%) were females and 186 (44.29%) were males. Malaria test positivity was 2.62% by using mRDT and 1.67% by using microscopic test. The sensitivity and specificity of mRDT were 85.71% and 98.78% respectively. Negative predictive value, positive predictive value and accuracy of mRDTs were 99.75%, 54.54% and 98.57% respectively. Sensitivity of mRDT was below the WHO recommended sensitivity (>95%) although the specificity (98.78%) was within the WHO recommended specificity (>=90). There was a substantial agreement between mRDT and malaria microscopic test results, k=0.642. Conclusion mRDTs continue to be an appropriate choice for malaria diagnosis in the absence of microscopy.
Background Currently, malaria rapid diagnostic tests (mRDTs) are increasingly used for the diagnosis of malaria, particularly in communities where microscopy-based diagnosis is not practical. However, the diagnostic accuracy of mRDTs performed by community health workers (CHWs) remains unknown. This study was conducted to determine the accuracy of mRDT results performed by CHWs in Ngoma district, eastern province of Rwanda. Method This was a cross sectional prospective study. A total of 420 blood samples of patients self-reported to CHWs for malaria diagnosis were collected and analyzed by CHWs using mRDT, and quality control tests were performed by using microscopy as a reference test. The study was conducted from 22 April to 08 July 2021. Results Among the 420 patients, 234 (55.71%) were females, and 186 (44.29%) were males. Malaria test positivity was 2.62% by using mRDT and 1.67% by using microscopic tests. The sensitivity and specificity of mRDT were 85.71% and 98.78%, respectively. The negative predictive value, positive predictive value and accuracy of mRDTs were 99.75%, 54.54% and 98.57%, respectively. The sensitivity of mRDT was below the WHO recommended sensitivity (>95%), although the specificity (98.78%) was within the WHO recommended specificity (>=90). There was substantial agreement between the mRDT and malaria microscopic test results, k=0.642. Conclusion mRDTs continue to be an appropriate choice for malaria diagnosis in the absence of microscopy.
Background Currently, malaria rapid diagnostic tests (mRDTs) are increasingly used for diagnosis of malaria, particularly in community where microscopy-based diagnosis is not practical. However, the diagnostic accuracy of mRDTs performed by the community health workers (CHWs) remains unknown. This study was conducted to determine the accuracy of mRDT results performed by CHWs in Ngoma district, eastern province of Rwanda. Method This was a cross sectional prospective study. 420 blood samples of patients self-reported to CHWs for malaria diagnosis were collected and analyzed by CHWs using mRDT and quality control tests were performed by using microscopy as a reference test. The study was conducted from 22nd April to 08th July, 2021. Results Among the 420 patients, 234 (55.71%) were females and 186 (44.29%) were males. Malaria test positivity was 2.62% by using mRDT and 1.67% by using microscopic test. The sensitivity and specificity of mRDT were 85.71% and 98.78% respectively. Negative predictive value, positive predictive value and accuracy of mRDTs were 99.75%, 54.54% and 98.57% respectively. Sensitivity of mRDT was below the WHO recommended sensitivity (>95%) although the specificity (98.78%) was within the WHO recommended specificity (>=90). There was a substantial agreement between mRDT and malaria microscopic test results, k=0.642. Conclusion mRDTs continue to be an appropriate choice for malaria diagnosis in the absence of microscopy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.