2006
DOI: 10.1016/s1473-3099(06)70579-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The reliability of diagnostic techniques in the diagnosis and management of malaria in the absence of a gold standard

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

13
154
1
3

Year Published

2011
2011
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 192 publications
(171 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
13
154
1
3
Order By: Relevance
“…RDT sensitivity becomes low when parasite densities are below the level of 200 parasites/ μL or less than 0.002% of the red blood cells infected (WHO, 2010). Low parasite density of malaria observed in this study is likely to have contributed to the low sensitivity of the rapid test (Ochola et al, 2006). A few individuals were who were RDT positive were blood smear negative.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…RDT sensitivity becomes low when parasite densities are below the level of 200 parasites/ μL or less than 0.002% of the red blood cells infected (WHO, 2010). Low parasite density of malaria observed in this study is likely to have contributed to the low sensitivity of the rapid test (Ochola et al, 2006). A few individuals were who were RDT positive were blood smear negative.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…Originally developed to inform clinical treatment, RDTs are increasingly important for epidemiological characterization 7 because of their low cost and field applicability. However, most only have reported detection limits in the range of 100 to 200 parasites per microlitre 8,9 in comparison with around 50 parasites per microlitre by expert microscopy 10 .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1). A limited number of studies have reviewed the detection capability of RDTs in asymptomatic individuals 8,21 , but key research questions still remain. A recent analysis of Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) across Africa showed a higher prevalence of malaria when measured by RDTs compared with detection by microscopy in 19 out of 22 surveys.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Diggle et al also recorded that respondents preferred RDT due to its perceived ease and swiftness of use, portability and non-reliance on electricity. The authors also reported that the fact that RDTs can't quantify parasitaemia, while some only detect P. falciparum and are not always reliable were some of the reasons for nonacceptance of malaria RDTs [12,13].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%