Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28738868›Full record

ArticleMalaria journal2017

Comparative evaluation of fluorescent in situ hybridization and Giemsa microscopy with quantitative real-time PCR technique in detecting malaria parasites in a holoendemic region of Kenya.

Joseph Osoga, John Waitumbi, Bernard Guyah, James Sande, Cornel Arima, Michael Ayaya, Caroline Moseti, Collins Morang'a, Martin Wahome, Rachel Achilla and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Malaria journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Joseph OsogaMalaria Diagnostics Center, Kenya Medical Research Institute/United States Army Medical Research Directorate-Kenya, Box 54, Kisumu, 40100, Kenya. JOsoga@iavi.org.ORCID 0000-0002-9759-4612
John WaitumbiBasic Sciences Laboratory, Kenya Medical Research Institute/United States Army Medical Research Directorate-Kenya, Box 54, Kisumu, 40100, Kenya.
Bernard GuyahBiomedical Sciences and Technology Department, School of Public Health and Community Development, Maseno University, Box Private Bag, Maseno, Kenya.
James SandeMalaria Diagnostics Center, Kenya Medical Research Institute/United States Army Medical Research Directorate-Kenya, Box 54, Kisumu, 40100, Kenya.
Cornel ArimaMalaria Diagnostics Center, Kenya Medical Research Institute/United States Army Medical Research Directorate-Kenya, Box 54, Kisumu, 40100, Kenya.
Michael AyayaMalaria Diagnostics Center, Kenya Medical Research Institute/United States Army Medical Research Directorate-Kenya, Box 54, Kisumu, 40100, Kenya.
Caroline MosetiMalaria Diagnostics Center, Kenya Medical Research Institute/United States Army Medical Research Directorate-Kenya, Box 54, Kisumu, 40100, Kenya.
Collins Morang'aMalaria Diagnostics Center, Kenya Medical Research Institute/United States Army Medical Research Directorate-Kenya, Box 54, Kisumu, 40100, Kenya.
Martin WahomeBasic Sciences Laboratory, Kenya Medical Research Institute/United States Army Medical Research Directorate-Kenya, Box 54, Kisumu, 40100, Kenya.
Rachel AchillaMalaria Diagnostics Center, Kenya Medical Research Institute/United States Army Medical Research Directorate-Kenya, Box 54, Kisumu, 40100, Kenya.
George AwindaBasic Sciences Laboratory, Kenya Medical Research Institute/United States Army Medical Research Directorate-Kenya, Box 54, Kisumu, 40100, Kenya.
Nancy NyakoeBasic Sciences Laboratory, Kenya Medical Research Institute/United States Army Medical Research Directorate-Kenya, Box 54, Kisumu, 40100, Kenya.
Elizabeth WanjaUnited States Army Medical Research Directorate-Armed Forces Research Institute of Medical Sciences, Bangkok, 10400, Thailand.
United States Army Medical Research Directorate - Africa · KEMaseno University · KEUnited States Army · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly and accurate diagnosis of malaria is important in treatment as well as in the clinical evaluation of drugs and vaccines. Evaluation of Giemsa-stained smears remains the gold standard for malaria diagnosis, although diagnostic errors and potential bias estimates of protective efficacy have been reported in practice. Plasmodium genus fluorescent in situ hybridization (P-Genus FISH) is a microscopy-based method that uses fluorescent labelled oligonucleotide probes targeted to pathogen specific ribosomal RNA fragments to detect malaria parasites in whole blood. This study sought to evaluate the diagnostic performance of P-Genus FISH alongside Giemsa microscopy compared to quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) in a clinical setting.

methodFive hundred study participants were recruited prospectively and screened for Plasmodium parasites by P-Genus FISH assay, and Giemsa microscopy. The microscopic methods were performed by two trained personnel and were blinded, and if the results were discordant a third reading was performed as a tie breaker. The diagnostic performance of both methods was evaluated against qRT-PCR as a more sensitive method.

resultsThe number of Plasmodium positive cases was 26.8% by P-Genus FISH, 33.2% by Giemsa microscopy, and 51.2% by qRT-PCR. The three methods had 46.8% concordant results with 61 positive cases and 173 negative cases. Compared to qRT-PCR the sensitivity and specificity of P-Genus FISH assay was 29.3 and 75.8%, respectively, while microscopy had 58.2 and 93.0% respectively. Microscopy had a higher positive and negative predictive values (89.8 and 68.0% respectively) compared to P-Genus FISH (56.0 and 50.5%). In overall, microscopy had a good measure of agreement (76%, k = 0.51) compared to P-Genus FISH (52%, k = 0.05).

conclusionThe diagnostic performance of P-Genus FISH was shown to be inferior to Giemsa microscopy in the clinical samples. This hinders the possible application of the method in the field despite the many advantages of the method especially diagnosis of low parasite density infections. The P-Genus assay has great potential but application of the method in clinical setting would rely on extensive training of microscopist and continuous proficiency testing.

Indexed as

In Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceMicroscopyReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionAzure StainsHumansKenyaMalariaPlasmodiumSensitivity and SpecificityAzure StainsMalariaMicroscopyPerformanceP-Genus fluorescent in situ hybridizationQuantitative real-time PCR

Identifiers

PMID28738868
PMCPMC5525264
OpenAlexW2739095173

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.