[PDF][PDF] A Comparative Study on Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Kit and Conventional Giemsa Stained Blood Film Microscopy

CA Brown Holy1 and Azike - academia.edu
CA Brown Holy1 and Azike
academia.edu
Aim: This study was aimed at comparing the rapid diagnostic kit with that of conventional
Giemsa stained thick and thin blood film microscopy. Background: Accurate diagnosis of
malaria cases in rural areas is a very difficult task due to lack of steady power supply and
lack of well trained scientists to handle microscopy. Since rapid diagnostic test produces
result within short period of time there is high preference to the rapid diagnostic kit without
recourse to sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and reliability of the result obtained. Methods …
Abstract
Aim: This study was aimed at comparing the rapid diagnostic kit with that of conventional Giemsa stained thick and thin blood film microscopy. Background: Accurate diagnosis of malaria cases in rural areas is a very difficult task due to lack of steady power supply and lack of well trained scientists to handle microscopy. Since rapid diagnostic test produces result within short period of time there is high preference to the rapid diagnostic kit without recourse to sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and reliability of the result obtained. Methods: Blood samples were collected from 144 children and adults with fever/history of fever and 20 control specimens at BMSH, Port Harcourt. Rapid diagnostic test was performed using CareStart Plasmodium falciparium malaria (HRP 2) test kit by access Bio while Giemsa stained thick and thin blood films was used for conventional microscopic method. Result: Results were analyzed and compared using conventional microscopy as reference standard. The blood films indicated that 73.6% of the patients were positive for P. falciparium while rapid test recorded 30.6% for P. falciparium. Rapid test failed to diagnose malaria at concentration less than 100 per microliter of blood. Its sensitivity and specificity were 37.7% and 89% respectively. Reliability of the result was below average (40.3%) and its accuracy was 51%. The Giemsa method was significantly sensitive than the RDT (P= 9.51 x 10-15). Conclusion
academia.edu
以上显示的是最相近的搜索结果。 查看全部搜索结果