ArticleMalaria journal2018
Improvement of malaria diagnostic system based on acridine orange staining.
Article in Malaria journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Malaria distribution and performance of malaria diagnostic methods in Malaysia (1980-2019): a systematic review.Malaria journal · 2020Pooled it
- Application of image recognition technology in pathological diagnosis of blood smears.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2024Review
- The Laboratory Diagnosis of Malaria: A Focus on the Diagnostic Assays in Non-Endemic Areas.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Malaria therapeutics: are we close enough?Parasites & vectors · 2023Review
- Quantitative Detection ofMicroorganisms · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRapid diagnosis of malaria using acridine orange (AO) staining and a light microscope with a halogen lamp and interference filter was deployed in some malaria-endemic countries. However, it has not been widely adopted because: (1) the lamp was weak as an excitation light and the set-up did not work well under unstable power supply; and, (2) the staining of samples was frequently inconsistent.
methodsThe halogen lamp was replaced by a low-cost, blue light-emitting diode (LED) lamp. Using a reformulated AO solution, the staining protocol was revised to make use of a concentration gradient instead of uniform staining. To evaluate this new AO diagnostic system, a pilot field study was conducted in the Lake Victoria basin in Kenya.
resultsWithout staining failure, malaria infection status of about 100 samples was determined on-site per one microscopist per day, using the improved AO diagnostic system. The improved AO diagnosis had both higher overall sensitivity (46.1 vs 38.9%: p = 0.08) and specificity (99.0 vs 96.3%) than the Giemsa method (N = 1018), using PCR diagnosis as the standard.
conclusionsConsistent AO staining of thin blood films and rapid evaluation of malaria parasitaemia with the revised protocol produced superior results relative to the Giemsa method. This AO diagnostic system can be set up easily at low cost using an ordinary light microscope. It may supplement rapid diagnostic tests currently used in clinical settings in malaria-endemic countries, and may be considered as an inexpensive tool for case surveillance in malaria-eliminating countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.