Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24548805›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2014

Evaluation of three rapid diagnostic tests for the detection of human infections with Plasmodium knowlesi.

Deshka Foster, Janet Cox-Singh, Dayang S A Mohamad, Sanjeev Krishna, Pek P Chin, Balbir Singh

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Malaria journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
10.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Rapid diagnostic tests for Plasmodium vivax malaria in endemic countries.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Artemether-Lumefantrine Versus Chloroquine for the Treatment of Uncomplicated Plasmodium knowlesi Malaria: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial CAN KNOW.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2018
    Trial
  6. Malaria.The New England journal of medicine · 2025
    Review
  7. Non-Human Primate Malaria Infections: A Review on the Epidemiology in Malaysia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. An Update on Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Tests.Current infectious disease reports · 2018
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Deshka Foster
Janet Cox-Singh
Dayang S A Mohamad
Sanjeev Krishna
Pek P Chin
Balbir SinghMalaria Research Centre, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia. bskhaira55@gmail.com.
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak · MYHospital Sarikei · MYSt George's, University of London · GBUniversity of St Andrews · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0801971
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPlasmodium knowlesi, a malaria parasite of Southeast Asian macaques, infects humans and can cause fatal malaria. It is difficult to diagnose by microscopy because of morphological similarity to Plasmodium malariae. Nested PCR assay is the most accurate method to distinguish P. knowlesi from other Plasmodium species but is not cost effective in resource-poor settings. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) are recommended for settings where malaria is prevalent. In this study, the effectiveness of three RDTs in detecting P. knowlesi from fresh and frozen patient blood samples was evaluated.

methodsForty malaria patients (28 P. knowlesi, ten P. vivax and two P. falciparum) diagnosed by microscopy were recruited in Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo during a 16-month period. Patient blood samples were used to determine parasitaemia by microscopy, confirm the Plasmodium species present by PCR and evaluate three RDTs: OptiMAL-IT, BinaxNOW® Malaria and Paramax-3. The RDTs were also evaluated using frozen blood samples from 41 knowlesi malaria patients.

resultsOptiMAL-IT was the most sensitive RDT, with a sensitivity of 71% (20/28; 95% CI = 54-88%) for fresh and 73% (30/41; 95% CI = 59-87%) for frozen knowlesi samples. However, it yielded predominantly falciparum-positive results due to cross-reactivity of the P. falciparum test reagent with P. knowlesi. BinaxNOW® Malaria correctly detected non-P. falciparum malaria in P. knowlesi samples but was the least sensitive, detecting only 29% (8/28; 95% CI = 12-46%) of fresh and 24% (10/41; 95% CI = 11-37%) of frozen samples. The Paramax-3 RDT tested positive for P. vivax with PCR-confirmed P. knowlesi samples with sensitivities of 40% (10/25; 95% CI = 21-59%) with fresh and 32% (13/41; 95% CI = 17-46%) with frozen samples. All RDTs correctly identified P. falciparum- and P. vivax-positive controls with parasitaemias above 2,000 parasites/μl blood.

conclusionsThe RDTs detected Plasmodium in P. knowlesi-infected blood samples with poor sensitivity and specificity. Patients with P. knowlesi could be misdiagnosed as P. falciparum with OptiMAL-IT, P. vivax with Paramax-3 and more correctly as non-P. vivax/non-P. falciparum with BinaxNOW® Malaria. There is a need for a sensitive and specific RDT for malaria diagnosis in settings where P. knowlesi infections predominate.

Indexed as

Point-of-Care SystemsBloodBorneoDiagnostic ErrorsDiagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansMalariaMicroscopyParasitologyPlasmodium falciparumPlasmodium knowlesiPlasmodium vivaxPolymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID24548805
PMCPMC3931291
OpenAlexW2097390491

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.